I just realized that I've never really written about Blake Ostler's
Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of Godliness. I've mentioned
it quite frequently, but I thought I'd dedicate a full entry to the book as I
think it is such an important book. While there have been books that have
attempted to analyze Mormon theology from a more rigorous philosophical
perspective, most have been quite poor in execution. While that was understandable
in the 19th and early 20th centuries with Orson Pratt or B. H. Roberts, it is
quite surprising it's taken so long to get a book that grapples with LDS
perspectives on theology. The closest there has been up to Blake's book was
Sterling McMurrin's
The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion. McMurrin's
book is rather overrated though, mainly providing a brief overview of standard
Christian theological perspectives and a somewhat superficial consideration of
Mormon perspectives. Blake's book is noted by being far more comprehensive in
terms of its topic. Further Blake wisely keeps the topic narrow focusing only
on the topic of the various attributes of deity. At nearly 500 pages he does
deal with the topic in depth.
The book breaks the topic of God into a few basic topics. The fist section concerns the meaning of God in Mormonism. This is important since there are a few subtle differences between our views and what one finds in most of the Christian literature. Blake points out that while our views are different, there are various positions even within orthodox Christian theology that offer various similar perspectives. Blake tends to come to the problems from a process thought perspective, although he doesn't focus in on it to such an extent that any familiarity with Whitehead or Hartshorne is necessary. Since I've found that even after reading Whitehead I'm still confused about process thought, this is a good thing. On the downside, sometimes Blake gives shorter emphasis to alternative approaches. For instance Cornelius Plantinga's Social Trinitarianism is mentioned, but largely in passing. Admittedly similar views are found in process theology which may explain this decision - still it would have been nice to have had more discussion of Analytic philosophical perspectives. Although I should add that Alvin Plantinga gets quoted a fair bit, for example. So this is a matter of degree at worst and some sections do mention varying perspectives more than others
The next section is a fairly comprehensive discussion of perfection - a rather key topic relative to God. The ontological argument of Anselm is mentioned, although unfortunately not recent reconceptions of it by figures such as Marion. To be fair though that is a topic perhaps too focused or too technical to really justifiably be included in the book. Still I think that critiques of how there still is a conception of Being in Mormonism which we separate from God could use further analysis and consideration. I think this is a place where orthodox critics can attack Mormonism philosophically and is a place largely unthought in Mormon theology. i.e. if we reject creation ex nihlo then how are we to think Being or the source of beings? Why do we separate it from God? Perhaps that might be appropriate for a different text and not this one though.
Blake follows these two introductions to the notion of God in Mormon thought with a brief overview of major theologians such as the Pratts, Widstoe, Roberts and others. After using these figures to introduce ways Mormons have thought about issues, Blake takes what's been established and gets into traditional theological arguments from his Mormon perspective. I say his perspective, since on these issues there tends to be more variety of thought within Mormonism than one might realize. For instance there are Mormons who believe God has classic omnipotence or something close to it. Likewise with respect to omniscience. Yet many would argue that there are at a minimum logical limits on these attributes, given some of the other positions within Mormonism. The most obvious is the traditional problem of the "incompatibility" between foreknowledge and free will. Blake defends a strong sense of free will while some Mormons might arrive at different views. Likewise the problem of the King Follet Discourse and an infinite regress of Gods leads to questions about whether God the Father is the "greatest being" or at least what that means.
I think Blake treats these quite well, devoting hundreds of pages to them. He manages the difficult task of taking subtle and difficult issues and communicates them to people who might be unfamiliar with them. (i.e. non-philosophers) So I must give him credit for this. However, and this isn't a criticism, he tends to emphasize a particular perspective. Put an other way, this isn't an overview of Mormon theology or the various positions within Mormon theology. Rather this is a single particular view of what one person thinks about Mormon theology. I say that isn't a criticism, but I think it is something people need to keep in mind. Normally that wouldn't be an issue, after all most authors only give their perspective. However the paucity of writings on Mormon theology means that there really aren't a lot of competing views. The main other writing on LDS theology is How Wide the Divide? by Stephen Robinson often takes positions not that different from what Blake has. While these often are different from more "traditiona" theological reconciliations by say Roberts or Pratt, one can come away with the unfortunate view there there is more unanimity on these issues than there actually is.
I don't consider that necessarily a bad thing, though. Blake has boldly started people writing on formal analysis of Mormon theology. A lot of people have thought through these issues and discussed them. Those considerations, however, rarely make their way to new investigators or people interested in the issue. So Blake's book is very important if only to get people thinking about the issues. If they, as I do, sometimes take exceptions to some of Blake's conceptions, then Blake's book still has done its job. Further one hopes that other authors will take Blake's lead and write their own analysis - hopefully engaging with Blake's views.
The last 100 pages are an overview of Mormon Christology. Some of this is important to expand on some claims by people regarding the "evolution" of our view of God. (Say, Widmer's Mormonism and the Nature of God regarding Modalism) Blake provides very good arguments here, and in earlier sections. He also provides a very clear presentation of what I think most Mormons consider basic LDS theology. While once again I think there are certain issues here that Blake could have included, the fact is that many of the problems of Christology that orthodox Christian theologians face typically don't occur for us. That really falls out from the earlier philosophical differences that underlay Mormon theology. While differing philosophical positions can be taken towards those differences, I think that few, if any, Mormons will view "nature" or "essence" the way they have tended to be view in the history of Christian theology. So we simply don't engage those issues the same way.
If I were to pick out a single book on Mormon theology that is a must buy I'd really say this is it. That's not to say there aren't many issues on the topics Blake discusses still open to further analysis. There definitely are. Further there are many topics such as prayer, the problem of evil, the meaning of the atonement, and sin which Blake plans to address in a forthcoming volume. Blake also plans a third volume which will take off from the first two volumes and really engage Mormon theology with traditional theologians - especially Buber, Kierkegaard and Levinas. This may be the most exciting volume to come out on Mormon theology ever. I eagerly await it as I think it will demonstrate a maturity of Mormon theology in that it will take "as given" a presentation of the basics of Mormon thought. One hopes that other authors will present engagements with other major thinkers such as Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, or others. However clearly before one can move on to this more "mature" level of discourse, the beginnings have to be established. While I'm sure other writers may take exception to some of Blake's positions in this first volume, he clearly is blazing the trail in an exciting way. Further it opens up to non-Mormons a clear and lucid presentation of Mormon theology that one can't get from most other writings.
One thing that I'd definitely like to do is start a Mormon theology book club. That is take a major book of theology and read through it commenting on it. I think that I'll start this with Blake's book. I read through it, admittedly sometimes faster than I ought to have, a year ago. I really want to go back through it in depth, considering what Blake has to say. I say that because I've found in discussions with Blake that oft times when I think I strongly disagree with him it turns out our positions really aren't that different. I'm not sure why that is - perhaps my own carelessness. But it does happen fairly regularly. Just recently he said he thought that he was defending my position and I thought I was attacking his. I suspect that this is in part not fully understanding some of the subtleties of his position and thus misreading him. That's a fairly easy thing to do in theology where we often use the same terms but mean different things by them. Trying to excape that problem of similar terminology is quite difficult and is perhaps 90% of the problem in most theological discussions.
If anyone is interested, I think I'll do one chapter a week. (Or try to) So if you want to purchase a copy and discuss it with me, feel free.
- - -
Discussions on individual chapters from Blake Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of Godliness can be found on our Reading Club page.
As I mentioned on A Motley Vision -- I'd be happy to participate if I can get the book.
I have one question already: you mention that he emphasizes his particular perspective. Does the text make this transparent in any way? Does he claim to be speaking as an "I" or a "we"?
Also: you kind of address this in your review, but is Ostler framing his discussion in terms of Christian theological debates? Or do Mormon considerations take precedence?
Let me rephrase that: it seems to me that you would end up with two very different books if you tried to discuss the Mormon view of God solely in terms of Mormonism as opposed to in terms of the classic theological debates about the nature of God. It seems as if Ostler's book is more the latter. Is that the case?
I don't think Ostler is necessarily framing his discussion in terms of Christian theological debates - especially not the historical ones from late antiquity. However clearly what constitutes theological issues is determined by the history of theology. So in that sense they determine it, if only because misunderstandings of LDS theology often arise out of our not engaging with those issues much.
As for his perspective, he doesn't use personal pronouns. So it is written more formally. But clearly he isn't summarizing the varieties of views either. He makes arguments, so I think one can quickly realize it is his views he is promoting.
Your later comment is interesting. I do think that the issues Mormons grapple with theologically are often different from traditional theological debates. Blake touches upon the more Mormon perspectives, but to be honest its hard to say what unique LDS concerns are. I think the King Follet Discourse sits there significantly. But if only due to neglect, there are few LDS concerns. Even when LDS have grappled with theology, it has often been in response to anti-Mormons. (Witness Orson Pratt, for instance) I think that, by and large, Mormons haven't been too interested in theology. (That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind you) Perhaps instead of being focused on theology we've been focused on history.
I've read McMurrin but not Ostler. McMurrin has the advantage of being a formally trained philosopher. Ostler appears to be neither a philosopher nor a theologian--which doesn't mean he couldn't write a fine book or undertake a fine analysis, it just raises certain questions.
I don't see the term "Mormon theology" as a meaningful category. One can engage in a tentative conversation that starts out with, "If there were a Mormon theology, it would probably sound something like this."
That said, I'm still interested in the book. But I just see it as one of many Mormon Studies tomes, not as bona fide theology. I'm not technical enough in theology to offer an informed summary, but I rather suspect there are formal requirements a religious tradition must satisfy before one can meaningfully talk about its theology.
Blake actually does have a rather solid background in philosophy. I'd say he is much more of a philosopher than McMurrin, at least in terms of his writing. You really ought to read Blake's book. I think it may change your opinion Dave.
Clark,
I'm definitely interested in doing a detailed reading of Blake's book as part of a book club. I read it a while back and would like to go through it again.
The title of this entry caught my attention because I wrote up an essay several years ago called "The Attributes of God: An Exegetic Approach from the Perspective of a Latter-day Saint" (see http://marksimmonsforhire.com/AttributesofGod.htm). Essentially it is a book review of Richard Hopkins' "How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God" in the form of analyzing what God's attributes really are from a survey of the Jewish and Christian canon (incidentally , you should add that book to your book club list!).
I closed the essay by citing that the Bible portrays God in seemingly contradictory ways - such that in one way Jesus is distinct from His Father and deity can be tabernacled in flesh, while at the other extreme it says that even the heaven of heavens cannot "contain" God. In essence it serves as a foundation point for engaging in further analysis within the Latter-day Saint tradition.
"If the scriptural record appears to contradict itself, perhaps the record by itself is unreliable. Perhaps this is why the early Christian apologists turned to Greek philosophy to resolve these inconsistencies, and this is why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receives new revelation to clarify what has already been written in the scriptures. It is no wonder that different religious sects interpret God's nature differently although they consult the same source. Consulting the Bible alone does not suffice. People must decide whether they will consult philosophical and religious traditions, or whether they will seek new revelations from prophets who can clarify the ancient record."
I had a chance to sit down at a Barnes and Noble a couple months ago and skim through Ostler's book. The scope of what he covers is great and I loved how he was able to classify between the spectrum of teachings from Pratt to Widtsoe to McConkie, showing the differences in their description of God's nature, if only semantic when all is said and done. One of his closing (opening?) comments I appreciated was that while he did his best to be descriptive, suiting the intellect and the English language, he said there are limits to what can be expressed at that level. Indeed it is the Spirit that confirms truth often in terms that we either don't have the language to express, or if we did express it in language, it would be insufficient, since in many cases truths can only be learned by experience.
I confess I find the claim that Greek philosophy corrupted the gospel to be strained at best. I tend to see the fundamental problem being interpreting the Hebrew God in terms of the Greek God. Admittedly that is most pronounced in the Platonic conceptions of God. But I'm not sure that is a problem with Greek philosophy so much as it is a problem with identifications of God. Although there are some obvious problems due to the search for absolutes. (Culminating in Anselm's proof for God)
I must confess that my experience with Hopkins parallels yours with Ostler: mainly reading at a bookstore. However my response probably is on par with Ben Huff's review of Hopkins at FARMS. "How Polemicism Corrupted Latter-day Saint Apologetics" (Note free registration required to read the review) Ben's very familiar with Aristotle and I rather enjoyed his treatment. Those who haven't read Hopkin's book can find a taste in his review of one of Bekwith's articles. "Counterfeiting the Mormon Concept of God". (Once again free registration at FARMS required)
My inclination is that sometimes people don't realize how different orthodox Christian doctrines are from the Greeks nor the diversity of thought amongst the Greeks. To say that it was Greek thinking that destroyed Christianity seems unfair. Rather I think it was simply that people tried to understand and without living prophets to correct them they trusted their readings of scripture too much.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble