A few Mormon thinkers like Blake Ostler want to invert the more Hellenistic approach to God. There’s a definite dominant strain of Christian theology that wants God to be completely Other to regular creatures. For such thinkers if there is a relation it is only in one direction. We are affected by God but not vice versa. Not all theologies go that far and perhaps it’s even unfair to call that the dominate view. But take say Anselm. There is a tendency where the “great than” is seen in terms of the ability to affect but not be affected. It’s conceived of in terms of power as domination. Blake’s approach is to suggest that power is better to be thought of in terms of being affected. Thus he wants to make God the most affected rather than the least affected.

How this plays out will vary from thinker to thinker. Yet for a significant strain of Mormon thought the fundamental error of much of traditional Christian thought is to make God too unrelated to humans. He must not need us. This reaches its culmination in the idea that there must be but one “thing” that is the necessary God. Everything else is contingent.

Mormonism, influenced significantly by Joseph Smith’s King Follet Discourse, goes the opposite way. (The King Follet Discourse isn’t canon for Mormons and most thinkers reject parts of it but it still is a pretty major text Mormon thinkers grapple with)  The dominant way the text is interpreted has all individuals uncreated and thus in some way are “necessary beings” like God. Traditional Christian theologians often criticize the Mormon view due to problems with having more than one necessary being.  (At a minimum how does one conceive of power in such a system?)  Most Mormons instead see a fundamental interrelatedness tied with freedom as essential to understanding power. Put an other way, Mormon thinkers critique the way of thinking about power (and thereby necessity).

One can critique Mormons in terms of how well they do this. And I don’t think Mormons necessarily have thought through all this well yet. But I think it gets at a fundamental divide between traditional Christian theology and the Mormon form of Christianity.  (Obviously I favor the Mormon approach but I think it leads to far fewer issues when thinking things like Christology which in my view become problematic in traditional theologies)

(Edit: some embarrassing typos corrected – perils of typing at midnight)

Related posts:

1. Maverick Philosopher on Mormonism & God
2. Beckwith on Mormonism and Natural Law
3. God and Completion

Bill Vallicella coincidentally had up a post mentioning Mormon conceptions of God this week.  His main argument is fairly simple.

Briefly, God cannot be a physical being because no physical being is a necessary being, and God is a necessary being.  By definition, God is the ultimate ground of the existence of everything contingent. Briefly, God cannot be a physical being because no physical being is a necessary being, and God is a necessary being.  By definition, God is the ultimate ground of the existence of everything contingent.  (He is more, of course, but at least that.)  As such, he cannot himself be contingent, and so cannot be physical.

Now in one sense that’s fine. However it merely pushes the question back a step. Why is God defined as the ground of all things? This isn’t a scriptural definition. People try and draw this as a definition from inferences out of scripture. (Such as God is creator) It demands the crucial step of unifying the questions about God from Athens (the ontological ones) with the questions about God out of Jerusalem (the interventionist ones).

From a Mormon perspective I think we see much of the great error of traditional Christianity as precisely that move. (I don’t want to say this is how Mormons conceive of apostasy because we typically see it in terms of priesthood authority – but I think for many Mormon thinkers it is precisely this redefining of God that is the theological problem)  I believe that the older Jewish view is actually much closer to the Mormon conception of God. (Which isn’t to deny some differences – but on the major ontological issues they adopt the same stance) A great discussion of this older view of God can be found in Jon Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil.

I think that ultimately to put the debate in the terms traditional Christians use Mormons think we ought distinguish the deistic questions from Greek philosophy (the question of Athens) from the theistic questions from early Hebrew thought (the questions of Jerusalem). To us the fundamental problem during the rise of Christianity was to see those questions as being about the same thing. It’s not that Mormons think the questions of Athens are inappropriate. We just don’t see them as questions about God as a person.

To add, I think denying the physicality of God is difficult for a Christian given basic Christology. That is Jesus is considered fully God and is physical. I think the only difference for a Mormon is to see many questions of Christology as applying not only to Jesus but to the Father as well. But from a Mormon perspective to criticize the Mormon position philosophically is really to run headlong into a denial of Christology which seems fairly problematic for a Christian to do.

With regard to the question of whether God is a necessary being I actually think Mormons can embrace that position although they need not. (Put an other way Mormonism doesn’t deny God as a necessary being) One possibility within Mormon thought is to simply say everything uncreated involves necessary beings. I think the more popular position is simply to deny there are necessary beings in terms of individuals although some do see the Father as a necessary being.

Related posts:

1. Yet More Anomalous Monism
2. Mormons and Atheists Most Knowledgeable About Religion
3. Davidson: The Myth of the Subjective 2

He told me of a Mormon friend who in conversation with an Evangelical Protestant had asked him whether a Christian who committed adultery would lose his salvation.  The Evangelical answered, “No.” The Mormon followed up with this query, “What if the Christian had murdered someone? Would he then lose his salvation?” The answer, again, was “no.” Then the Mormon asked, “Well, what if he had become a Mormon?” The Evangelical answered, “That’s a good question. I don’t know.”

With Evangelicals considering only Gingrich and Santorum for their endorsement, Beckwith argues they are making a similar calculus.

Now I’m not entirely sure that’s fair. After all if one is doing a calculus in terms of results then it might be better to have someone who behaves unethically but gets the results one wants. If I pick a doctor I want the one who’s going to make me most healthy not necessarily the one who lives the best life. Likewise I can see Evangelicals finding Gingrich’s personal life abhorrent but thinking a Mormon as President might normalize acceptance of Mormonism leading to fewer Evangelicals much more than Gingrich would lead to more adulterers.

That said it has long been interesting to me that some Evangelical opposition to Mormons seems so much stronger than opposition to other things. It’s one thing to say something is theologically wrong. But frankly most lay Evangelicals believe lots of things that Evangelicals formally think is just as heretical as how they perceive Mormon belief. Why emphasize one rather than the other?

Related posts:

1. Claiming Christ: Evangelical – Mormon Dialogue
2. Mormons and Evangelicals
3. Beck, Mormonism and Evangelicalism

As I mentioned in the BCC thread a few things seem really off. They have the rate of self-identification as Mormon at nearly 2% whereas previous self-identification studies such as the 2008 ARIS one had us at 1.4% (and fairly consistently over the last 20 years). I’d discussed that back a few years ago.

The population rate isn’t the only head scratcher though. They have the rate of people attending church at least weekly as 77% which is better than what most wards claim as their attendance. Tithing paying is listed at 79% which seems astoundingly too high. (I think the Church lists it at less than 50%) There are a few other head scratchers. Why for instance do only 94% of self-identified Mormons think Monson is a prophet? While that’s a high figure for any survey I’d think that to self-identify as Mormon would entail that acceptance. The only thing I could think of was that some other Mormon faiths such as fundamentalists or RLDS were picked up in the survey. (Pew said there were very few non-LDS but it’s hard to know what that constitutes)

I think the reason for the problems with the survey is some bias due to how they sampled. Pew admits that Utah and southern Idaho were the dominate locations surveyed. On the one hand that makes sense. There are a lot of Mormons there. On the other hand I think it really biases the results since the behavior of Utah Mormons is somewhat different from non-Utahns. When nearly everyone in your neighborhood is LDS and you often socialize at Church it’s different from having one or two wards in a big city and fewer Mormon acquaintances.

It appears like they tried to match percentages to the population of such states. Mormons are very common in the west and unsurprisingly 71% of respondents were from the west with 34% from Utah. They don’t give the breakdown for other states but I bet California and Arizona had a reasonable number of respondents as well.

While the survey is a little misleading it is interesting for giving a look at how Mormons think. Mormons definitely still have a persecution complex – although the survey was rather ambiguous over what the responders perceive as discrimination. As I mentioned at BCC I’ve frequently heard things said about Mormons that were the name changed to black or Jew would be blatant racism. Yet I don’t think most Mormons remotely face the kind of job discrimination that blacks or homosexuals face.

The most surprising figure I saw in the survey was the rate of mission service. 27% said they’d been on a mission. When you stop and think that only men are encouraged to go and about 25% of Mormons are converts that’s a pretty staggering number. Given some of the other stats I’m not sure how to take that. Ditto on the food storage question. They have 82% having food storage. I just can’t believe that’s true. 82% of the people regularly attending my ward in Provo don’t have that unless one is pretty liberal about how one answers.  (i.e. well, I have stuff in my freezer)  I think there are a lot of projections to “ideal Mormon” in the responding rather than what people are actually doing.

An other interesting bit was 54% saying drinking was morally wrong. I think the survey gets at an ambiguity since if you’ve committed not to drink then it would be morally wrong to break ones commitment even if alcohol isn’t intrinsically morally wrong. But that’s a nuance perhaps unfair to expect from a survey like this – I think some of the moral questions fall into that. So for example in general people might think it wrong to divorce but in specific situations think it the moral thing to do.

Related posts:

1. Misc LDS Stuff
2. Mormons and Atheists Most Knowledgeable About Religion
3. Claiming Christ: Evangelical – Mormon Dialogue

My first big resolution is to get caught up on my reading of Object Oriented Philosophy. Primarily reading Adam Miller’s book (which is probably closest to my own views judging by past discussions) and then Levi Bryant’s recent book Democracy of Objects. I’d read the past year or so several of Graham Harman’s books but was so swamped with other tasks I don’t think I’d read them with the rigor they deserve. However I also found that the key issues I saw weren’t addressed that well so I think going with Adam’s and Levi’s might be better. Which isn’t to disparage Harman’s – just that I suspect the other variety gets at the issues I see important a little better.

Now I just have to find where I put the e-book of Adam’s work.

The next  resolution is to work on this blog more. I find writing here is a good way to work through the stuff I’m studying. Way back in college I found that one of the best ways to study was to have others you engaged in – especially people struggling in class. A large part of that was because if you could explain things to someone having a hard time understanding it forced you to really understand things yourself. My biggest danger was thinking I understood well when really I didn’t. This blog in many ways is my attempt to do that. Not that readers are akin to struggling students. (Most of you are far smarter than I am) But it does force me to think through my ideas in a way taking notes just doesn’t achieve. If I get comments taking me to task for mistakes that’s even better.

My final resolution is to be a little less “combative” in my argument style. A few people have told me I come off intimidating while others just think it’s annoying. It’s not my intention and I honestly thought I was being careful <i>not</i> to do that in my argumentation style. I fully admit that I learn by having people challenge my ideas and it’s honestly not personal. I hope people respond in a respectful but challenging form to me. That’s partially why I prefer discussing religion with atheists as I know they’ll challenge me the most from many angles. I’m still thinking the best way to do this.

Related posts:

1. Russell Fox on Mormons and Wealth
2. Blogs more accurate?
3. Terms I Hate

I am intrigued though by the claim that Mormons are wealth seekers. I think that a worry about this is actually a pretty large concern among Mormons. After all one of the obvious things that Chris Lehmann missed in his article was that Mormon scripture constantly warns of seeking after riches. (Seriously – this is one of the main messages of the Book of Mormon) It’s a pretty constant theme in Mormon lessons. While it’s undeniable that some Mormons do get caught up in greed the fact is that Mormons have a complex relationship with wealth.

One way of considering the issue is by breaking down the way wealth is distributed amongst Mormons.

A shocking statistic that someone mentioned in the comments to Russell’s post was that Utah actually has the least amount on inequity of all states in the United States.  In the last census data Utah had a Gini coefficient of 0.410. There was only one other state, Wyoming, that was really close (with 0.413)  To give you an idea of some of the others, California had 0.466; Colorado 0.450; Nevada 0.434 and Massachusetss 0.461.

Now one can of course still criticize this. After all the Gini coefficient gives a score between 0 and 1 with 0 being perfect equity. So even Utah is pretty far off. But considering it is a state within the United States largely subject to the same laws, freedoms, and incentives that it quite interesting.

In the 2009 survey from the Census Bureau Utah ranked second, behind Alaska, which honestly still is great considering the way Alaska spreads its oil wealth.

Again this is hardly determinate of a lot since arguably social programs will control ones Gini index a lot (thus Canada is lower than even Utah) Although I do wonder how the Gini index is affected by other demographics such as the number of children.  And comparing countries can be tricky because of whether income is counted before or after benefits.  Further Mormons only make up around 62% of the state and many of those are not practicing Mormons.

An other interesting statistic comes from the Pew Forum study on Mormons. There were fewer people earning less than $30,000 than the national average and few people earning more than $100,000 than the national average with a large number in the upper middle class (38% vs. national average of 30%).  That’s rather remarkable considering some of the other features of Mormon demographics.

Related posts:

1. Mormon Problem for Republicans
2. Russell Fox on Mormons and Wealth
3. Mormons as Puritans

Razib unexpectedly got a lot of flack for the post (he is after all an atheist) and did a followup on what atheism and autism may have in common. The basic idea is that the kinds of intuitions held by those on the autistic spectrum (including very high functional autistics – i.e. the majority of scientists) tend to not lead to a belief in God. This opposite to most autistic like cognitive styles (i.e. the very social) tend to believe in God more.

As an aside, as I mentioned at a BCC thread today, I think this may be a partial explanation of the long noted difference in religiosity between men and women. Even women with Asperger’s tend to be much more social than men with the same disorder. However 80% of people diagnosed with autistic spectrum conditions are male. I don’t claim that this explains everything but it is an interesting hypothesis.

The final post on the topic today was on intuition and cognitive style influences on belief in God. Perhaps unsurprisingly those who rely more on intuition than reflection believe in God more. The connection isn’t huge but it is interesting, even acknowledging the limits of the study. Of course breaking out what we mean by intuition is important. (As I note in the comments)

Anyway it’s all quite interesting although probably unsurprising to those who’ve studied the relationship between cognition and religious belief. I’d suggest checking out the posts. They’re definitely worth reading. (Please, if you comment, remember the majority of readers are scientists and atheists – don’t embarrass us with silly comments about religion. Mormons have a pretty good rep over there. Let’s keep it that way.)

Related posts:

1. Intuitions in Philosophical Argument
2. On Intuitions in Argument
3. Intuitions and Responsibility

I’m not convinced natural law of the Catholic variety really is that big a part of Mormon thought although it’s definitely possible to read Mormon thought in those ways. Certainly various Mormons have done so. I think Beckwith does get at the real divide at the end — most Mormons don’t see the universe ultimately as ontologically created from nothing by God but rather something co-existing with God. So God as lawgiver is much more an organizer of pre-existent matter and a persuader of co-eternal intelligences. That is the real divide between Mormon thought and the rest of Christianity is the rejection of creation ex nihilo.

To me the most interesting bit of Beckwith’s article though is this little snippet.

For, as we have seen, the LDS universe is shot through with teleology, moral and otherwise. The Mormon God is bound by an unchanging moral law outside himself that is part of the infrastructure of an eternally existing cosmos.

I just wonder about this. What would be an unarguable example of teleology in Mormon thought? I can’t think of one and I’ve been racking my brain. I think on most things Mormons thinks that either God brings about a particular end through his power or else the laws of the universe are more a limit on God’s power rather than a teleology.

Of course this is where things get tricky since within more traditional Christianity God’s intents and moral law are the same. While many bring up the famous Euthyphro problem on this point it seems undeniable it is part and parcel of most mainstream Christian theology.

Mormonism does say there is a Good. That is there are moral laws. But the ontology of the moral laws are more interesting. While I’ve not seen anything resembling a poll I suspect most Mormon thinkers tend more towards a consequentialist meta-ethic. i.e. some variation of Utilitarianism. However many recent thinkers clearly have been moving much more towards Continental thought. Especially the positions of people like Levinas. The problem with Levinas and related thinkers is that while you get an ethical demand you don’t get anything akin to a moral law of the sort Beckwith presents. Indeed I’d argue that Continental thinkers end up critiquing moral law. (Think Derrida in “Force of Law.”)

As I’ve noted here before I’m probably fairly skeptical of meta-ethics. If I had to adopt an ethical view it would definitely be more the Levinas or a similar deconstructed Aristotelian virtue ethical view.

All that said there definitely are Kantians among Mormons as well a natural law theorists. So I don’t want to give the picture that Mormons are opposed to such positions. I’m just not sure it’s that significant a position within contemporary Mormonism.

Maybe I’m wrong though. Still, Nate Oman (one of my favorite bloggers – albeit one who blogs rarely now) wrote a critique of Mormonism and Natural Law back about 10 years ago. “A Very Short Essay on Mormonism and Natural Law”.  An other interesting discussion was a debate between Richard Bushman and Damon Linker over at The New Republic in 2007 when Romney first was running for President.  I’ll quote an excerpt.

From your reply, I would judge that you are most concerned about loyalty to prophetic authority. Would Mitt Romney as president give way to immoral and illegal directives from Salt Lake? You make the subtle and interesting point that Mormons have no natural law tradition to constrain a Mormon president–either a president of the Church or the country. Since revelation trumps everything, where are the limits?

Your concern might be alleviated by considering how revelation actually works–in Mormonism and in biblical history. The scriptures themselves place heavy restraints on prophets. It makes a big difference that the moral law is enunciated endlessly in Mormon scriptures. The Ten Commandments were rehearsed in an early revelation, reinstalling them as fundamentals of the Church. Later, the Saints were told “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” Could all this be overthrown by a new revelation? You think that revelation wipes the slate clean, negating everything that went before. But that is not the way prophetic revelation works, now or ever.

The proper analogy is to the courts and the Constitution. The law is what the courts say it is, we assert hyperbolically. Theoretically nine justices can overturn any previous interpretation of the Constitution on a whim. But, in fact, they don’t–and we know they can’t. Their authority depends on reasoning outward from the Constitution and all previous decisions.

Related posts:

1. Heidegger and Mormonism: A Possible Literary Aesthetic
2. Mormonism, Grace and Works
3. Mormonism and Supernaturalism