Philip Clayton on the Possibility of a Mormon Process Theology

These are my reactions to “God Beyond Orthodoxy: Process Theology for the 21st Century,” presented by Philip Clayton at the SMPT Conference in Claremont California on May 21, 2009.

Clayton began by saying that substance doesn’t play a major role in LDS theology, which is good because substance doesn’t exist. When I questioned him on this a bit, it became clear that he was talking about substance in the Aristotelian sense. Aristotle held that every object is comprised of a substance or essence unique to that kind of object. The substance of a tree, for example, would have the quality of “tree-ness.” Aristotle argued that we can distinguish between the substance (matter and form) of an object on the one hand and its “accidents” or properties (which have to do with relation and action rather than essence) on the other. Thus the color, weight, texture, location, and motion of the tree are incidental to the substance of “tree-ness” itself. Critics of Aristotle have pointed out that only accidents can be observed, and that to remove all accidents from a substance would leave not the substance itself, but nothingness. In other words, the substance/accident distinction is arbitrary. These critics would thus argue either that substance does not exist at all, or that it is the sum of its properties and cannot in any meaningful sense be separated from them. I think this latter is what Clayton meant by the term “matter,” whose existence he affirmed (as opposed to the Aristotelian concept of “substance” whose existence he denied). When I questioned Clayton a bit more after his session ended, he told me that process philosophy views matter as a sort of “limit” on Events, which it understands to be the basic units of reality. (Process philosophy is based on what’s called an “Event-based ontology” as opposed to the more traditional Western “Being-based ontology”.)

Even if Clayton’s argument against the existence of substance is taken for granted, I was unpersuaded by his statement that substance plays no significant role in LDS theology. One statement from a medieval thinker that Clayton quoted and rejected said that a person is defined as an “individual substance of a rational nature.” This sounds to me like the LDS doctrine of eternal intelligences. Clayton seemed to think the LDS doctrine is acceptable as long as it is spiritual atomism and intelligence is a form of raw matter. But he seemed to think that the idea of eternal egos would be problematic. Then there is also the LDS doctrine that God is anthropomorphic (a far cry from porcess thinkers' transcencent deity), and that there’s no such thing as immaterial “stuff”. Clayton actually claimed to agree with the latter, despite its apparent emphasis on the reality and materiality of matter. I guess even someone who thinks matter is just a function of Becoming can agree that matter is material and real.

If I'm to be completely honest, I have to admit I find this entire discussion about substance- vs. event-based ontologies a bit outmoded. I don't think that either “substances” or “events” are the ultimate components of reality. After all, modern science has found that substance is mostly empty space and atomic force fields, that time is simply the fourth dimension of space, and that there may be multiple parallel universes or the universe may be a giant wave-function equation. Obviously “reality” as we know it is far more complicated and illusory than we ever imagined. I suspect that what we think of as substances and events are simply supervenient properties of some other, more basic monistic unit of reality (like “strings” or “branes” or “quarks” or something like that). I still agree with Parmenides' basic idea that the world of appearances is false and deceitful because in reality change is impossible and existence is timeless, uniform, and unchanging. In that sense, I guess I side with Being-based ontology over Becoming-based ontology. But I wouldn't talk about the basis of reality in terms of “substances”, so when process theologians make that their foil, they aren't talking to modern Parmenidians like me. They're talking to an ancient Aristotelian strawman.

Jason Monson on the Possibility of a Mormon Pluralism

Here are my notes on "Mormonism and the Religious Other," presented by Jason Monson at the SMPT Conference on May 21, 2009.

Jason (a visitor all the way from Glasgow, Scotland) argued for the possibility of an LDS version of the pluralist philosophy of religions. Jason feels that the LDS believer can hold that Jesus mediates salvation and that the Book of Mormon and Church are true without excluding the possibility that God has given other mediators, revelations, and commandments to other peoples.

Jason endorsed some aspects of John Hick’s pluralism, like for example the shift from self to Reality-centeredness as the unifying paradigm for salvation among the religions. An interesting shift from Hick’s and other famous pluralists’ view, though, was that where most pluralists speak about Jesus as a mediator of God, Jason spoke of Jesus as a mediator of God’s salvation and glory. As I pointed out in question-and-answer, the shift highlights an interesting difference between the LDS view of God as anthropomorphic and the standard pluralist model of God as transcendent. This does not necessarily mean LDS theology and pluralism are irreconcilable, but it does mean a Mormon pluralism will look somewhat different than the standard pluralist formulations. Jason’s reformulation of this language actually might be worthwhile for other pluralists to adopt, as it is potentially more inclusive.

Jason’s comments on mediators were interesting. He suggested that other mediators might, like Jesus, have been in a pre-existent godhead-level unity with God. He stated that these mediators might differ from Jesus only in degree of perfection, not in nature. This statement made me a little uncomfortable because it sounded a bit more like inclusivism than pluralism, trying to affirm that Jesus is superior to other mediators in some perhaps inconsequential, but nevertheless real way.

One of the interesting points Jason made was that the LDS concept of eternal progression actually implies pluralism, because it means our present understanding cannot be perfect, and thus may be inferior to others. Jason also explored other LDS concepts that imply pluralism. He repeated, for example, John Hick’s argument from moral parity. According to the Bible, religions are to be judged by their fruits (i.e. the “fruits of the spirit” like gentleness, kindness, and self-control). Since there is little or no demonstrable difference between the levels of morality found in the world’s faiths, those faiths would seem to be more or less equally valid according to this biblical standard. Another powerful argument Jason employed asked, “do our bosoms not burn when reading the scriptures of other traditions and recognizing the truths they contain?” Ultimately Jason asserted that the true church includes all salvific paths, and that the LDS Church is just a part of that broader true church. He compared this to the church of the devil in 1 Nephi, which is generally interpreted in scholarly LDS circles as a reference not to the Roman Catholic Church specifically, but to all corrupt and apostate religious persons.

I know Jason was a little frustrated that most of the questions he was asked during question and answer were hostile (or at least challenging), especially since the process theologians who made similar arguments were much better-received. But I thought he did a great job and made some poignant points. His was certainly the most direct argument for pluralism that was made at the conference. I commend him for making it.

One question that I asked was, “since pluralism generally assumes divine transcendence, whereas Mormon theology is anthropomorphic, are the two really compatible?” Jason offered the great answer that the persons of the LDS godhead may simply be mediators of God, and not his final or ultimate representations.

Other questions asked of Jason focused mainly on the nature of truth. The askers seemed to hold the common misconception that pluralism is basically relativistic in its understanding of truth. I don’t think that’s the case at all (at least when we’re talking about the essentialist kind of pluralist philosophy defended by Jason and John Hick). Essentialist pluralism is somewhat relativistic with respect to religious experience, but it does not deny the existence of mutually-exclusive propositions and does not shy away from positive and/or negative truth-claims. Jason tried to explain this, but unfortunately it’s hard to grasp, and I don’t think the people who asked the questions really got what he was trying to say. I had the opportunity to talk with a few folks after the session to clarify this. It was a very constructive discussion.

Martin and Eric on Heavenly Mother

Here are my notes and thoughts on "Our Heavenly Mother: Teachings and Applications," presented by Martin Pulido and Eric Dowdle at the SMPT Conference, May 22 2009.

Eric and Martin opened by pointing out that Heavenly Mother (HM) is a mostly taboo subject in Mormonism today. Some believe she is too sacred to talk about. These people argue, for example, that her virtue and reputation must be protected by cloaking her with a curtain of silence. Feminist LDS intellectuals take this to be the standard Mormon view. They rail against the vision of HM as the ideal and invisible heavenly housewife whose sole purpose is reproduction. Eric and Martin's purpose was to show that this is not, in fact, the orthodox Mormon view.

They argued their case by citing a large number of General Authorities from every period of Church history. Orson F. Whitney, for example, spoke of HM and Heavenly Father (HF) as “those we now worship”. He held that both worked together to design the Plan of Salvation. The Gospel Principles manual states that the premortal council was with both our Heavenly Parents, and they both sent us to earth. At the judgment, we are to give an account to both HF and HM. Brigham Young included HM and the heavenly daughters among those who go from power to power and create worlds. He also made HM a partner in creation. Elder Holland teaches that HM continues to nurture, watch over, and care for us in our everyday lives today. The same has been taught by Elder Ballard and Harold B. Lee.

The modern concern over HM seems to focus on her authority and worship status. Only recently have LDS writers been hesitant to use language like “God the Mother.” Widtsoe spoke this way, and so did Talmage. Pratt said that both males and females experience the fullness of divinity. One GA explicitly disagreed at this point: George Q. Cannon. He said HM should not be deified or considered part of the Trinity. Other apostles directly disagreed with Cannon, rejecting the idea that HF is jealous of the honor given to HM. Without HM, HF would not be God. Erastus Snow said deity consists of both man and woman together. Nothing can be God in which the two are not blended. They twain are one God.

I felt the weak point of the paper was the discussion of the ethical and doctrinal implications of the Heavenly Mother doctrine. I say this was the weak point not because these implications are bad, but because it was difficult to see how they follow directly from the version of the Heavenly Mother doctrine Eric and Martin defended. For example, it's true that we should love others and show sympathy and affection, but this seems to be connected with HM only on the assumption that these are strictly feminine virtues. More problematically, the suggestion that we should "protect every mother and sister" seems to have more to do with the view Eric and Martin are arguing against-- that HM's virtue must be protected behind a wall of silence-- than with the one they actually promoted. Similarly, the statement that "whatever prejudice there is on earth, ideal relationships are possible" assumes that HM and HF have an ideal relationship, which (despite strides in the right direction) Eric and Martin did not really fully establish. This is the sort of thing where our assumptions about HM and HF's relationship really follow from the alleged implication, rather than the other way around.

Other, less problematic implications they listed included the idea that we're all one family and should love all siblings unconditionally, the idea that good parenting is a moral obligation, and the idea that women as well as men can see themselves in the image of God. Probably we should add the potentially more controversial implication that husbands and wives should share their possessions, power, and authority equally.

Eric and Martin closed by making the excellent suggestion that LDS should talk about HM more, especially in art and music.

Tyler Stoehr: Do Mormons Really Believe That?

Here are my notes and reflections on Tyler Stoehr's SMPT talk, "Do Mormons Really Believe That?" presented on May 21.

Tyler was asking what role the prophetic tradition should play in determining LDS doctrine. He sympathizes with the evangelical complaint that defining LDS doctrine being like nailing Jell-O dipped in olive oil to a wall, because there are several different views about what constitutes doctrine. One is the Ostler/Robinson view, which borders on sola scriptura. Another is that the prophetic tradition is the ultimate authority. The third view is that we need to have some mixture of scripture and prophetic tradition.

The first view is one to which many apologists—particularly those who seek to build rapport with evangelicals—seem to be moving. Theologians in this camp, like Blake Ostler, consider the scriptures to be the “ultimate” test of theological adequacy and are not afraid to contradict LDS prophets. They equate the prophetic tradition with private interpretation. Both Ostler and Stephen Robinson believe we will always be inferior, subordinate, and perhaps even contingent to God, even though Joseph Smith claimed that we will inherit the same power and glory and calling as the Father. Robinson also claims that Mormons attribute to God all the power, glory, and attributes that evangelicals do. God, for example, doesn’t change his mind “anymore than Professor Blomberg does.” Robinson even goes so far as to claim that finitist theology is “repugnant” to Mormons. These statements are obviously out of step with the LDS prophetic tradition.

Tyler feels that Ostler & Robinson’s approach to LDS doctrine contradicts the traditional LDS view that asserts the necessity and final authority of the prophetic tradition. Mormonism has always taught that scripture is not sufficient. When I suggested to him in the question and answer session that this was a circular argument—defending the authority of tradition by an appeal to tradition—he said he thought the authority of prophetic tradition could probably be defended from scripture, as well. Someone else who attended the session told me afterward that he thought Ostler and Robinson would disapprove of Tyler’s characterization of their view as sola scriptura, because they do not entirely reject the tradition.

The second view—that the prophetic tradition rather than scripture is the final authority for LDS doctrine—Tyler feels is inadequate because LDS have consistently denied prophetic infallibility, and because the tradition is not entirely consistent with itself.

The third view is the one Tyler prefers. This view, advanced by Robert Millet, seeks a middle way between scripture and tradition. It accepts only those aspects of the tradition that exhibit “sticking power” and gain the imprimatur of further revelation and further prophets. Although Tyler doesn’t think that “sticking power” is a sufficient criterion to resolve conflicts within the prophetic tradition, he feels Millet’s is the closest we have to an appropriate paradigm.

Tyler seemed to feel that Ostler and Robinson have sold out to Protestantism in their zeal to provide an apologetic that Protestants will find acceptable. In the question and answer session I suggested that Tyler himself may have sold out to a Protestant ideal, because he is assuming that doctrine is important and needs to be systematically worked out when in fact the LDS church has historically been experiential and anti-theological. Tyler allowed that that may be so, but as a left-brained individual clearly found my argument personally unpersuasive.

The SMPT Conference Was Great!

So while Kevin Barney was at MHA last week learning about the latest thing the LDS Church "discovered" in its vault that it has actually known it had all along, I was attending the SMPT Conference in Claremont, CA. It was a fantastic event. I met quite a few new and interesting people, and also had the opportunity to spend some time with folks I knew from the message boards but had never met in person. (If you ever run across Blair Hodges at one of these events, ask him about "chocolate3". And if you ever meet Tyler Stoehr, have him tell you about the lives of Wittgenstein and Nietzsche.) Claremont is a very nice city and the conference was well put together. Kudos to Dan Wotherspoon and Ben Huff for organizing it!

One of the first papers I attended was "Do Mormons Really Believe That?" by Tyler Stoehr. Stoehr was asking what role the prophetic tradition should play in determining LDS doctrine. There are several different views. One is the Ostler/Robinson view, which borders on sola scriptura. Tyler seemed to feel that Ostler and Robinson have sold out to Protestantism in their zeal to provide an apologetic that Protestants will find acceptable. His own view accords more with Millet, for whom scripture and tradition must complement each other.

Next, in "Mormonism and the Religious Other," Jason Monson essentially argued for the possibility of an LDS version of the pluralist philosophy of religions. According to Jason, the LDS believer can hold that Jesus mediates salvation and that the Book of Mormon and Church are true, but not exclude the possibility of other mediators, revelations, and commandments that are equally valid and/or salvific.

Philip Clayton, John Cobb, Majorie Suchockie, and others argued for the possibility of reconciling Mormon theology with process theology. I generally found their arguments unpersuasive, mostly because of Mormonism's emphasis on materiality and anthropomorphism (in contrast to process theology's emphasis on process and transcendence). But then I'm biased against a process ontology from the beginning, since I find it horribly arbitrary and counter-intuitive. Other attendees seemed to find the arguments more persuasive than I did.

My own paper explored similarities between Mormonism and Pentecostalism-- of which there are many-- and suggested some explanations for why their attitudes about each other seem to be mostly negative in spite of their similar histories and theologies. In closing, I expressed doubt as to whether they can be reconciled without losing their distinctive beliefs and identities as faith traditions.

Daniel Peterson shared some personal reflections on interfaith dialogue, arguing that the participants in a good interfaith dialogue will be those who are truly dedicated to their traditions, not the liberals and outsiders who tend to be drawn to ecumenical types of activities. Then Dan read a paper by Farooq Hassan, a Pakistani Muslim scholar who couldn't make it to the conference. Hassan argued that Muhammad was tolerant and non-violent, and that Islam is a religion that lends itself to pluralism and acceptance of other faiths. It was definitely a one-sided and highly selective argument, but interesting nonetheless.

Blair Hodges, in "C. S. Lewis, Latter-Day Saints, and the ‘Virtuous Unbeliever,’" investigated some similarities and differences between Mormons and C. S. Lewis. Blair found that Lewis was a sort of soft inclusivist, but that his ideas in other respects were not as congenial to Mormonism as they are sometimes made out to be. Lewis held strongly to Nicene theology, insisted on the ontological gap between God and man, felt teetotalism was tyranny, and denied that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Eric Dowdle and Martin Pulido argued against the popular feminist perception of Heavenly Mother in orthodox Mormon theology as the ideal and invisible heavenly housewife whose sole purpose is reproduction. They provided an impressive number of quotations from General Authorities and Church manuals that not only have Heavenly Mother participating in divinity, but that also portray her participating in the premortal council, creation, the superintendence of the world, and the judgment.

Follow the links to see some of my longer notes and reflections on a few of these that I found particularly thought-provoking.

Creed and Conscience: Essays in Honor of A. James Reimer

My book review of Creed and Conscience: Essays in Honor of A. James Reimer, published in Direction Journal last Fall, is now online. The book is one that seeks to place Anabaptist theology in conversation with the more orthodox Western theological tradition. Some of the essays in the volume were better than others-- one of my personal favorites was Christina Reimer on Freud, Jung, and the Trinity-- but almost all of them are worth at least a cursory reading, especially for those who have an interest in Anabaptist history and theology.

Skynet Is Stupid.

I'll try to keep this spoiler-free, but in case I fail in some respect, read at your own risk.

I went and saw Terminator: Salvation tonight. It's a great action movie with excellent special effects. It definitely kept me on the edge of my seat the whole way, and made me jump and cringe like any good action film should. It also had good, likeable characters, which in my opinion is one of the most important aspects of any movie.

Unfortunately, the movie didn't have a whole lot else going for it. The acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, either. The actors were keeping their voices low and raspy for a sort of gritty feel that frequently felt forced. And more importantly, the script just wasn't very good. Part of Skynet's master plan (to destroy the resistance) was brilliant, but the other part (to kill John Connor) was unfathomably stupid. And then, like supervillains in every bad movie, Skynet stops to gloat for several minutes and reveals its entire master plan to one of the main characters before killing or even significantly restraining him. Seriously? I mean, when egotistical supervillains do it in comic book movies, that's at least understandable. Cliche, but understandable. But Skynet is a computer, guys. It doesn't have an ego.

I also had a problem with the ending. John Connor is OK with someone else committing suicide to donate an organ for him? He doesn't even raise an objection, even though the donor just saved the world (and John's life)? And no one else objects, either? Sorry, but at that point I'd rather just let Christian Bale die and keep the other guy. He was way cooler, anyway. And ultimately more of an asset for the resistance.

So, anyway. Good movie: go see it. But keep your expectations low, and you'll probably enjoy it a lot more.

(For more specifics about why Skynet is stupid, complete with spoilers, click here.)

A Suggestion for California Lawmakers

Dear California lawmakers,

Now that the taxpayers of California have rejected your proposal to borrow tens of billions of dollars to help make up the budget deficit, I'd like to offer a somewhat different proposal. Maybe you'll even actually get desperate enough to give the teacher's unions the finger and give this a try. My suggestion is simple: sell the public schools.

You heard me right. Start selling the public schools to private corporations, and issuing vouchers to students in those districts. This could potentially generate millions of dollars of quick income, reduce annual costs, and increase the efficiency of the education system. Because let's be honest: California's education system is a sinking ship. It's rapidly taking on water, and the unions won't let anyone man the pumps. So there's really only one logical solution: abandon ship. Launch the life boats. Get the hell out of Dodge. Put our undead system out of its misery, and let some highly motivated private corporation deal with the problem.

It'll be better for everyone.

Sincerely,

-Chris Smith

Study Suggests Mormons Are More Tolerant than Average

Back in 1987, Dialogue ran an article titled "Religious Tolerance: Mormons in the American Mainstream." The Dialogue survey asked respondents to indicate (on a scale from 1 to 7) their ideal social distance from members of various denominations. If the respondent was willing to marry a person of a particular faith, she gave them a 1. A score of 2 meant a willingness to have them in her personal group of friends, 3 as neighbors living on the same street, 4 as employees in the same occupation or office, 5 as fellow-citizens in the country, and 6 as visitors to the country. A score of 7 meant the respondent wished them excluded from the country entirely. Here are the interesting results:


The authors of the study note that Mormonism is relatively well-respected, except by conservative Christians. They add that Mormon attitudes toward conservative Christians "are more moderate," though it should be noted that Mormon tolerance of this group is still below average. Mormons follow the national trend toward intolerance of cults and eastern religions, which the authors suggest problematizes "the hypothesis that members of a historically persecuted minority will be more sensitive toward other minorities." Here again, however, the numbers should be compared against the national average. Mormons are, actually, generally more tolerant of these groups than average.

There was unfortunately a problem in the methodology since Mormons and conservative Christians do not believe in inter-faith marriage. Their average results will thus be skewed slightly higher than the numbers for groups that find inter-faith marriage more acceptable. Disbelief in interfaith marriage is not necessarily intolerance (though I suppose it could be legitimately interpreted as such). Recognizing this problem, the authors suggest that looking at the extremes of the spectrum provides a more telling assessment of Mormon attitudes:


Although a quarter of the Mormons were still willing to exclude the Moonies from the country, their numbers here were far, far better than the other groups studied. It appears that Mormons are much less inclined toward radical intolerance than the general population of the country.

The study's biggest flaw, which the authors acknowledge but don't thoroughly address, is selection bias. All the respondents studied were students at one of five institutions of higher learning, four of which were universities (including BYU), and one of which was a Bible college. There is nothing to guarantee that college students are representative of attitudes in the general population, or that the Bible college and BYU students can be justly compared to religious students at secular four-year universities. I also suspect things have changed a bit in the last 20 years. Still, there is no recent study out there exactly like this one. I would love to see the study re-done in greater detail and with a larger, more representative sample.

On Sunstone and Antisemitism

Over at MADB, Bill Hamblin complains that Sunstone is too anti-Mormon, and says, "I find most Sunstone presentations repetitive, derivative, predictable and boring." When challenged on this, he adds,

Imagine a symposium on Jewish Studies in which the majority of presenters are Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, Anti-Semitic international banking conspiratorialists, and atheist Jews who regularly heap contempt upon the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Jews, etc. Even if there are a number of papers given at the conference which treat Orthodox Jewish scholars, people, beliefs, practices traditions, and scripture with respect, do you think Orthodox Jews would flock to this conference to present papers, especially given the fact that there are many venues to present papers where Jewish studies are treated with respect?

In Bill's defense, he claims to have believed that "Technically speaking, Anti-Semitism is religious, not racial." (Actually, the term was coined in the 19th century to describe race-based prejudice.) Nevertheless, the comparison of Sunstone presenters to Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers is disturbing at best.

And, as several people over there pointed out, Sunstone has practically begged orthodox presenters to come, but church leaders have discouraged them from participating (though many do anyway). And Sunstone has also often come under attack by the ex-Mormon community for being infested by apologists. Other things said on that thread are untrue as well. One poster claimed that unlike FARMS and FAIR, Sunstone provides no reasons why one should retain one's faith and/or stay in the Church. Although not everyone at Sunstone advocates staying in the church, my impression is that the majority do. The "Why We Stay" sessions are designed to make precisely this case, and without all the simply false and unsupported apologetic claims one must swallow if one chooses the FARMS/FAIR route to faith-retention.

In other news, here's the proposal I eventually decided on:

Session Title: "Sacred Sci-Fi: The Fiction of Orson Scott Card as Mormon Mythmaking".

Abstract: Although most of it is not explicitly billed as Mormon, the science fiction of Orson Scott Card has often drawn on Mormon theology, history, and scripture for its inspiration. Card's corpus offers, among other things, a Mormon theodicy, a Book of Mormon allegory, an apologetic for Joseph Smith's use of magic, and a harmonization of Mormon cosmology with modern science. Card's project is not unprecedented. Certain elements in Mormon theology lend themselves to a sci-fi interpretation, and the sci-fi genre has been fairly accommodating of religious and spiritual themes. In recent years Card's writing has taken a more political turn. The nature of his project has not changed, but its emphasis has, and the new direction will be unsettling to many.

2009 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium Call for Papers

It's that time of year again... time for the Salt Lake Sunstone call for papers! Those of you who have never been to a Symposium before really ought to check it out. It's loads of fun. Those of you who have attended but never presented a paper before need to get over the stage fright and submit an abstract or a panel proposal. It's easier than it sounds, I promise. Got some interesting stories to share? A devotional? A unique perspective on faith? Want to talk about how green jello is really an archetypal symbol with some arcane spiritual meaning? Want to get a panel of message board participants to talk about how the boards have (or haven't) changed their outlook on the Mormon faith? Make your abstract sound at least passingly intelligent, and they'll probably let you present. The more (and the more unique) the merrier, I say.

Here's the skinny. The Symposium takes place on 12-15 August 2009 at the Sheraton Salt Lake City Hotel. There are special conference rates, just over a hundred bucks a night. The conference theme is Zion's Sisterhood: Celebrating Mormon Women's Contributions to Church and Culture. But you can submit an abstract on any subject, as long as it's Mormon-related. Act quickly, though. The deadline for submitting proposals is 20 May 2009. (Short notice, I know. Sorry about that. I just received the announcement in the mail today.)

All proposals must include:

A session title
A 100-word abstract
Name, brief bio/vita, and contact information for all proposed participants/presenters
A list of any audio/visual equipment needs
A brief summary of the topic's relevance to Mormon Studies
If possible, please include a preliminary draft.

Late or incomplete proposals will be considered on a time and space-available basis.

Send email proposals to MARY dot ELLEN at SUNSTONEMAGAZINE dot COM or mail proposals to 343 N Third West, Salt Lake City, UT 84103.

Here are the ideas I'm bandying around right now. I'll probably submit an abstract on one of these topics.

A source-critical analysis of the Book of Abraham
A response to alleged ancient parallels to the Book of Abraham
Mormon dispensationalism in the context of 19th-century evangelicalism
Mormon elements in the novels of Orson Scott Card
A reflection on my personal faith journey, and in particular how it has been influenced by my obsession with Mormonism and Mormon history

Feel free to vote for your favorite. ;-)

Can a Mormon Be a Compatibilist?

In my last post I argued that when the Protestant Reformers spoke of free-will they weren't talking about libertarian free-will, but rather about freedom from the bondage of original sin. Mormonism was born in the context of 19th-century Protestant theology, and adopted the language of that theology. Thus what I wrote about Protestantism also applies to the Mormon scriptures.

The theology of Joseph Smith's earliest works is basically Arminian, in that it accepts the doctrines of original sin and bondage of the will but also teaches that original sin has been removed and freedom restored by Christ's atonement. Given that Joseph Smith studied Arminian theology in his Methodist membership class, this is hardly surprising.

The most explicit text that teaches this theology is Moses 6:54-56. Here we read that although children are "conceived in sin," Christ has "atoned for original guilt" such that "they are agents unto themselves." As in Arminian theology, some taint remains, so that "they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good." 2 Nephi 2:26 similarly states that because Christ redeemed humans from the fall "they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon."

The bottom line I'm getting at is that "free agency" in the LDS scriptures is generally freedom from original sin, not freedom from determinism. I suggested in my last post that an Arminian could be a compatibilistic determinist if she believed that God refrained from exercising meticulous foreknowledge when creating our human souls. LDS believe that God did not "create" our souls at all. Thus Mormons, too, can be determinists. Certain aspects of LDS theology mesh better with determinism anyway, like foreknowledge and foreordination. I see nothing in LDS theology or scripture that requires a libertarian understanding of free-will.

When the Reformers Talked about Free Will, They Didn't Mean What We Mean

The modern debate over free will pits compatibilistic determinists against advocates of libertarian freedom. Confusion often arises when these terms are read back into classical theological debates over free will. When the first Protestant Reformers debated the question of "free will" with Catholics, the battle was essentially waged over the question of original sin: its effects and how they can be remedied. The split between the Calvinists and Arminians came closer to approximating or implying the modern compatibilist and libertarian positions. But in truth, the debate still was not over the nature of freedom so much as its relationship to election, grace, and original sin. Most modern Arminians interpret classical Arminianism through a libertarian lens, but one could theoretically be both a compatibilist and an Arminian. The mechanism and nature of freedom have been considered the key to this debate only relatively recently.

When the Protestant Reformers first talked about free will and “the bondage of the will,” they did not have the determinism/libertarianism debate in mind. Rather, their interest was in the effects of original sin. Augustine had held that fallen human beings were free to do anything they pleased as long as it was sinful. For fallen people afflicted by original sin, it was non posse non peccare -- not possible not to sin. Augustine argued that divine regeneration restores human freedom and frees it from bondage to Satan, such that it now becomes possible for the redeemed person not to sin -- posse non peccare. Thus for Augustine, the essential distinction between free people and unfree people had nothing to do with determinism and everything to do with the constraining power of Satan preventing them from doing the good. Augustine's model served as the basis for Reformation theology. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all agreed that the will is "bound" prior to regeneration and "free" afterward, yet all three believed in meticulous sovereignty and double predestination and thus could be described as compatibilistic determinists.

Early Arminianism, the major Protestant alternative to Calvinism, differed from Calvinism at several major points. It held, first of all, that God's election is based on his foreknowledge. God knows ahead of time who will choose to have faith, and he elects those people on that basis. Arminians also believed that the human will can successfully resist God's grace and that Jesus died for everyone rather than only for the elect. In spite of these differences from Calvinism, Arminians continued to maintain a belief in original sin and in the bondage of the will. The prevenient grace of Jesus, who atoned for all mankind, removes original sin and restores our natural human freedom. Where Arminians parted ways with the Calvinists on this issue was that Calvinists held that regenerating grace restores the freedom of the elect only, whereas Arminians held that prevenient grace restores the freedom of all humanity and enables them to choose to cooperate with regenerating grace if they so desire. Like the Calvinists, the Arminians also believed in God's exhaustive knowledge of the future.

As I mentioned above, one could be a classical Arminian and a compatibilistic determinist. All that is really required is that God not have exercised meticulous foreknowledge or providence when he created human persons. God might, for example, have willingly suspended his foreknowledge or willingly randomized the configurations of the souls he created. This allows human actions to be determined but not by unconditional election, the main doctrine the Arminians were reacting against. Although the Arminians talked often about the freedom of the will, they still meant by this basically what the Calvinists had meant: freedom from the bondage of the will imposed by original sin. They added the additional sense of freedom from divine coercion, but said nothing yet that required that this freedom be indeterministic or libertarian.

Star Trek is Fantastic!!

If you haven't seen the new Star Trek movie yet, GO SEE IT. It is a truly fantastic product, which will be enjoyed by Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike. The action is fast-paced, the writing is smart and very funny, the acting is compelling, and the CGI is extremely cool.

Trekkies will notice that there are some nods to the old TV shows. There is Scottie saying, "I'm givin' it all she's got, Captain!" There is Dr. "Bones" McCoy muttering about Spock being a "green-blooded hobgoblin". There is an appearance by Leonard Nimoy in the role of future-Spock. Kirk is a total ladies man, just like in the originals. But my personal favorite was an "away mission" scene where a nameless red-shirt gets killed in the first minute or so of the mission. That is SO classic Star Trek. There is also music based on the original series, and the uniforms, communicators, and some of the sound effects hearken back to the good old days as well.

But the directors do not follow slavishly after the originals. They keep just enough stuff to retain the flavor of the old shows, but got rid of everything that made the original series cheesy. You won't see anybody looking into big binocular-like scopes on the bridge, thank God. The bridge staff also doesn't sit around for five minutes between battle scenes killing time with a bunch of pseudo-scientific technology talk. All that dead weight has been left by the wayside, resulting in a crisper, faster-moving storyline that's very enjoyable.

There were a couple technical inconsistencies. There is a scene where the Enterprise is only managing to avoid getting sucked into a black hole by keeping its engines at maximum warp. They then eject the warp core and blow it up behind them so that the shockwave will push them out of the gravity well. Problem is, they would need the warp core to maintain warp speed. In the few moments before the core exploded, they'd have gotten sucked in. In another scene, Spock is running around the surface of a planet that's collapsing in on itself because it has a black hole at its core. Huge rock formations are breaking off and crumbling under the weight of the gravity, but Spock is prancing along like a fleet-footed deer. The increase in gravity should have plastered him to the ground like a fly on flypaper. All of that said, the technology for the most part was pretty well done, and the science wasn't bad enough to ruin such a great movie. A little sprinkling of suspension of disbelief will get you past the trouble spots.

The casting was fantastic. I was skeptical of Sylar as Spock, but he did a great job. The guy who played Kirk also did a great job. Chekhov's accent was a little thick, but they got some good humor out of that and didn't overdo it (though they came close). Scottie's character was lovable, Uhura was sexy, and McCoy was just as fiery and funny as the original. The weakest one was Sulu, but then he was the weakest character in the original, too. One notable omission was the sex symbol of the original series, Nurse Chapel.

Bottom line: great movie, great writing, great graphics. Go see it.

Ben Franklin's Plurality of Gods

Jonathan Rowe over at Positive Liberty highlights a very interesting Ben Franklin quote that he calls Proto-Mormon. Here it is in part:

I believe there is one Supreme most perfect Being, Author and Father of the Gods themselves.

For I believe that Man is not the most perfect Being but One, rather that as there are many Degrees of Beings his Inferiors, so there are many Degrees of Beings superior to him. [...]

It may be that these created Gods, are immortal, or it may be that after many Ages, they are changed, and Others supply their Places.

Howbeit, I conceive that each of these is exceeding wise, and good, and very powerful; and that Each has made for himself, one glorious Sun, attended with a beautiful and admirable System of Planets.

It is that particular wise and good God, who is the Author and Owner of our System, that I propose for the Object of my Praise and Adoration.

Jon is right: there is a remarkable similarity to the theology of Joseph Smith here. Consider in particular Franklin's statement that "as there are many Degrees of Beings [man's] Inferiors, so there are many Degrees of Beings superior to him." Above all of them "there is one Supreme most perfect Being, Author and Father of the Gods themselves." Smith drew a very similar inference. In the Book of Abraham we read, "Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; [...] And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all."

I rather doubt that Franklin influenced Joseph Smith directly. I suspect that Smith and Franklin arrived at their similar conclusions independently from the same source: natural theology (or what Bishop Butler called the “Analogy of Nature”). Both Smith and Franklin explicitly justify their plurality of deities by analogy to the structure of the cosmos. This is a very modern kind of reasoning, and does not appear in Smith's case to be rooted in a reading of an authentic ancient text, as he claimed.

Why Captialism Is Losing the Culture War

Timothy Sandefur hits the nail on the head:

I do wish the real culture war were over capitalism. I think the right side would win such a war. The problem is that the dispute is muddied up by cultural conservatives who have so far been wildly successful at convincing people that along with freedom of economic choice comes laws barring people from getting married, or sleeping with those they choose, or whatever. Social conservatism has handicapped advocates for free markets for a long time, and it has become a particular charlie horse right now. Unless something is done about it, people will choose collectivist economics so long as they think it comes along with personal freedoms.

I am a registered Democrat because of social issues and international issues. But the truth is, I am closer to a libertarian ideology. I'm no fan of socialism, big government, welfare, or excessive government regulation of the economy. I only vote Democrat because voting libertarian is tantamount to throwing my vote away. No libertarian is ever going to win a national election. So I hold my nose and vote for the socialists instead of the National Socialists. It's extremely frustrating.

On a related note, Orson Scott Card is calling on conservatives to destroy the government if it should legalize gay marriage. Jesus. And my conservative friends wonder why I vote Democrat?

Is Revelation Something "Wholly Other" that "Breaks in" to History?

Karl Barth famously argued that divine revelation is something independent and radically "other" that "breaks in" from outside the flow of human history in completely unexpected and unprecedented ways. One of the scholars who argued against Barth's idea was Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg pointed out that many of the theological elements in the gospels were already present in the Jewish tradition. The logos theology of John, for example, was quite pervasive in Hellenistic Judaism of the first century. So were eschatological, ascetic, and messianic currents. Much of the ethical teaching of Jesus, including his summary of the law and his Golden Rule, also had rabbinic Jewish precedents. The gospel writers, Pannenberg pointed out, were really just bringing together a variety of already-present elements into their own syntheses. Far from being discontinuous with history, the gospels merely built on what had gone before. Pannenberg believed that God reveals himself through natural historical processes and that faith arises when God's self-revelation through history is recognized and understood.

I hate to disappoint the Barthians among us, but Pannenberg was right. Revelation does not just "radically break in" to history from some objective location outside space and time. As I commented over at Irresistible (Dis)Grace, our "revelation" experiences are shaped not only by texts and traditions, but also by religious communion and rituals. In nearly every case of which I am aware, religious experiences do not just happen willy nilly and at random. Rather, they are conjured in specific settings and by specific means like prayer, ritual, or art. My experience of speaking in tongues was a great example of that. I was trained to have certain expectations about the experience, and then in an intense emotional and ritual setting I was encouraged to act out those expectations. The experience was profound, but it did not occur in a vacuum. It was the result of considerable training and prodding.

Another example of this is the Mormon "testimony" experience, more colloquially termed the "burning bosom". At Sunstone a few years back my friend Don Bradley presented a fantastic paper titled "Making Witnesses" in which he argued that the Book of Mormon produces "testimonies" in its readers by "presenting and re-presenting a simple but compelling model of religious behavior." Don points out that every conversion in the Book of Mormon follows the same basic structure (including receiving knowledge or a "witness"), and that this pattern recurs again and again and again throughout the Book. And, he says, "the narratives of the book also encourage and provide a pattern for those desiring to obtain their own witness of what they have heard testified." The format of testimony meeting and of the missionary discussions actually emerge from the content of the Book of Mormon itself and then in their turn reinforce the "culture of witness" it is designed to communicate to potential converts. The bottom line, for the purposes of this post, is that here again we find that Mormon testimonies are the product of extensive training, behavior modeling, and ritual and emotional "conjuring". They do not come from outside of history.

You Have to Have Religion before You Can Have Relationship

Andrew at Irresistible (Dis)Grace has been carrying on an interesting conversation with an evangelical commenter about whether Christianity is a religion or a relationship. I couldn't pass up such a convenient excuse to pontificate a bit about religious pluralism.

The old religion vs. relationship schtick that evangelicals love so much is really an exercise in false dichotomy designed to separate "us" from "them". We have a pure, unadulterated relationship with God, while they only have empty ceremonies and chants and doctrines and rituals. We know God personally, while they only have the empty form and illusion thereof. So the argument goes.

The problem with this argument is that "we" are in fact no less influenced by a religious tradition than "they" are, and a relationship with God actually would not even be possible without such a tradition.

Think about the phrases, concepts, and language that evangelicals use to express their faith in and relationship with God. Even the words "faith" and "relationship" and the idea that these things are more desirable than "religion" were actually taught to us by our pastors or religious leaders. The concept that we have been forgiven and that Jesus died for our sins is also part of a tradition. So is the style and format of evangelical worship. And these are just a few; examples could be multiplied ad infinitum. The Bible itself is a product of tradition and is itself a tradition or structure that frames and defines evangelical Christians' relationship with Jesus.

It is an old adage that Catholics experience Catholic miracles, Mormons experience Mormon miracles, and evangelicals receive a check for exactly the right amount just when they need it most. We all stand in a tradition and all of our experiences are shaped by that tradition and understood through its lens. Even atheists often tell their de-conversion stories in a format remarkably similar to the “testimony” narratives in their former religious traditions.

Language and tradition actually strongly influence how we experience and understand all the events of our lifetimes. Studies of memory have shown that when we remember an event, what we remember is not the event itself but rather the interpretive schema through which we made sense of it and gave it meaning and significance. This happens not only after the fact, but at the moment of experience itself. Our minds make split-second interpretive decisions of which we're often not even aware. We look at an elephant and know it's an elephant; we hear speaking in tongues and know it's speaking in tongues. We don't so much study the elephant's anatomy or mentally record every syllable of tongue-speech as we simply recognize these things and name them: names we have learned from tradition.

The bottom line I'm getting at is that nobody can exist in a vacuum without a tradition, and neither should anyone want to. If we had no language, how would we express our experiences? How would we even understand what had happened to us? Our experiences would simply be empty, meaningless events. There would be no understanding or reasoning. There would be no communication. There would be no relationship. I have no problem with people claiming that they have a relationship with God. In my opinion, that’s fantastic. But no one should pretend to be free of the influence of a religious tradition. Nor should we pretend that there is something qualitatively different about the way we carry on our relationship from the ways other religious people do the same. We are all equally affected by tradition and upbringing, and we are all equally religious. And that's the way it should be.