Upcoming SMPT Conference

Posted on March 4, 2008
Filed Under Conferences, Philosophy, Religion |

The Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology has its 2008 conference this month at the University of Utah from March 27 - 29. The full conference program is available online.

I’ll actually be at all the sessions this year (baring any emergencies). While I unfortunately once again didn’t have time to finish my Heideggarian reading of D&C 93 paper I will be part of a panel on Blake’s books on theology. I’ll be commenting on the second volume (The Problems with Theism and the Love of God) along with Jim Faulconer and David Paulsen. (The third volume wasn’t out in time to give anyone time to read and comment on it)

For those interested in Blake’s books there is an interesting paper by Dennis Wendt called “Toward a Latter-day Saint Theology of Possibilities” that Blake will be offering comments on. There will also be a paper by David Paulsen on process thought and theodicy. (Process thought is, of course, key to Blake’s approach to philosophy and theology)

Those of your who have read Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies there will be a panel Saturday on that book. I enjoyed the book and will probably be commenting on it here over the next week or two. However it is a book perhaps more oriented towards non-Mormons curious about Mormon theology than towards Mormons. Each section is an introduction and overview on a major strain of theology and then a Mormon response. Some sections are better than others. It is interesting that after hearing about Liberation Theology for so long I finally understand why so many see affinities between it and LDS thought.

I should also note that last year’s conference is available in a book from Amazon. It is Discourses in Mormon Theology: Philosophical and Theological Possibilities. I ordered my copy although it hasn’t arrived yet. When it does I’ll probably comment on it. I was only able to attend the Saturday session last year. I know there were a few other papers I was very interested in.

Anyway I hope to see you all there.

Comments

10 Responses to “Upcoming SMPT Conference”

Clark,

Discourses in Mormon Theology isn’t last years program, but one of a few years ago.

Oh really? I didn’t realize that. We’re really behind, eh?

Has this taken over the publishing of Elements?

No, Element still is published — some are articles from conferences, some not. If I remember right, the Discourses book is from the first SMPT conference.

(By the way, glad to see your site back up.)

Is the new issue of Element (2:1) printed and available for sale yet?

We got our copy in the mail a couple weeks ago, I think. So, yes it’s out. I’m not certain where it’s available for purchase at a store.

Ben just sent this out:

Jad Hatem and David Paulsen have switched places in the schedule to better fit with Prof. Hatem’s travel back to Lebanon. Hence Prof. Hatem will speak at 9am Friday in OSH 104, and Prof. Paulsen will speak at 4pm Saturday in LNCO 1110. The Business Meeting will follow at 5pm.

Blake:

Earlier this morning you stated that the virgin birth was not something that Mary freely accepted. I have at least three problems with this.

First, I find this highly at odds with your overall theological trajectory. You seem to want to develop a relational theology based on free-will; however, you then deny that free-will was involved in probably the most intimate way that two people can be related, namely, being the mother and father of a child. The whole things seems to be at odds with your position. Can you explain to me how you reconcile the two?

Second, I asked “If that is the case then why did not Mary just abort?” To which you responded “I don’t know you’d have to ask her.” Admittedly, the question was not well phrased (indeed it was poorly phrased). But the question was not really about her motive, but rather about her decision. The virgin birth was not just a one time event. It involved Mary’s free decision to carry the child to term. So, it seems to me that you are required to admit at least this much.

Finally, it seems to me that a basic moral tenet is that is entirely inappropriate to impregnate somebody without their consent. Suppose that a patient goes into have surgery and while under anesthesia the doctor impregnates her, not by having sex with her, but by directly injecting his sperm into her ovum. Can the doctor give as his defense “I did not impregnate her against her will; rather, I did without her consent.” This seems highly problematic!

I’ll write up my thoughts of the day later as a separate post. I was going to try to go today as well but my toddler got rather ill last night. (I went into yesterday with about 3 hours sleep and didn’t exactly get a restful night last night)

Anyway to your point, I’m not sure Blake resolved this as well as he could have done. I think a better answer from his position is to simply say Mary agreed to be the mother of Jesus in heaven and that this was set from the beginning. That seems most compatible with how Mormons think of the issue anyway. I’m surprised he didn’t take that approach.

The alternative, of course, is to have an angel discuss it with Mary. Perhaps lowering the veil somewhat. Then if she agrees simply put the veil of forgetfulness back up.

I do agree that Blake’s tendency to see anything that might contradict his view as simply an expansion by Joseph Smith to be very problematic.

I think the question about abortion was in poor taste at best though. However to take it seriously we need only say God would ensure she couldn’t. Either by taking away agency (tweaking the brain) or by manipulating the environment so she wouldn’t.

Clark stated: “I think the question about abortion was in poor taste at best though.”

I do agree. I sometimes let my emotions get the best of me. Blake, my conscious has been bothering me since stating it and I do apologize for it. I hope that I did not offend and if so I ask your forgiveness. Perhaps, you can let me buy you lunch or something to make up for it.

With that said, let me explain why I was emotional. As an Orthodox Christian, I see Mary as my mother. Blake’s comment, to my ears, was a direct attack upon her and me. To say that my mother was not even asked if she would want to be my mother and that I was forced upon her without her consent was shocking. It had overtones of rape. Obviously this is not what Blake meant when he said it. It was an academic statement. But this was the direction that my mind immediately took it and my mouth followed without consulting my brain first.

In the ideal world philosophy is not to be emotional. But alas we are not there, yet — at least not I. I seem to recall a story about some philosopher coming after Wittgenstein with a fire poker during a lecture.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your comments on the lectures, Clark.

As I said I don’t think Blake addressed it as well as he could have. And I definitely could at the time see the overtones that offended you. But from a philosophical perspective I’m not sure it ends up being a real problem. If only because Blake’s position isn’t that we always have some absolute free will. (Which would be a silly position if you stop and think about it) Rather it is simply that we often do. Some adopt many of Blakes positions but argue we are rarely free.

So one could always take that perspective on the controversy. One has to remember that by free Blake is meaning a rather narrow view of what freedom is. Even though it is clear Blake is guided by a strong feeling that freedom is key and important I think we have to remember that academic setting. His ultimate target is competing views of freedom which he feels don’t do justice to our intuitions. His texts then draw out the implications of that relative to creation ex nihilo, grace, foreknowledge, prayer and so forth.

While I’m pretty agnostic at best about what constitutes free will I think Blake gives it a pretty strong showing. I just wish there were more folks writing technical philosophy giving a wider variety of views from within the LDS tradition. That’s what I was trying to get at towards the end of my introductory comments. But time was going fast enough that I cut it short and didn’t even touch upon what I thought were the two most important critiques of Blake.

Leave a Reply