This section of McMurrin is inaptly names "nominalism and materialism." I say inaptly as McMurrin seems to equate logical positivism and nominalism and asserts rather inappropriately that Mormons are positivists. Now during the 1930's and 1940's there was a strong move towards scientism in the church, especially under Elder Widstoe. However Widstoe quickly saw the implications of this and backed away. I think that the positivist tendencies of Mormons have been overstated by many. Certainly Mormons tend to focus in on particular events and individuals in our theology. Further I agree that, despite some writings of Pratt and Roberts, there has been a strong distrust of formal theology and metaphysics in particular. When theological issues are considered, many appeal to science and empiricism rather than metaphysics. So, for example, "spirit matter" is considered in terms of neutrinos or even dark matter when informed people try to speculate on the subject. An appeal to more metaphysical notions, whether Platonic, Aristotilean or otherwise is rare. Even Orson Pratt, the most famous LDS theologian, carefully crafts his theology in terms of the scientific understanding of the day. Indeed one could easily say that this adherence to the science of the day unduly limited his theology which was in many ways Leibnizean in form.
While Mormonism has a very strong empiricist bent to it, I think McMurrin errs by reading too much into this. For one, I think that the American pragmatists like Peirce show that one can be empirical, pragmatic and yet still grapple with what were traditional metaphysical issues. (Peirce was very influenced by medieval philosophy - especially the nominalist - realist debate) More importantly though, there are sections of LDS scripture such as D&C 93 or D&C 88 which suggest metaphysical issues to LDS theology. While these certainly can be read from a speculative scientific perspective, it seems difficult to comprehend them that way. Further one familiar with Renaissance philosophy, Kabbalism, or neoPlatonic philosophy will recognize similar phrasing and ideas. That's not to assert a link, although some such as Michael Quinn have asserted such links. But it does suggest that reconciling Mormon theology with traditional strains of nominalism will be quite difficult.
McMurrin does point out that some Mormons confuse substance with material. D&C 131 never says this, of course. It merely says that immaterial matter is inconsistent. Unfortunately we have only those brief notes from some lecture by Joseph Smith in D&C 131. Presumably the original lecture would have been far more clear in what Joseph meant there. Now McMurrin is correct that Orson Pratt's argument in " Absurdities of Immaterialism" goes in that direction. Put an other way, Mormon materialism tends to adopt a naive materialism ala Hobbes - even adopting many of his arguments. Even in the early 20th century the only change from a traditional Newtonian-like materialism is the possible dualism of Cartesian minds for intelligence. (Many psychologists up to the 1950's retained a position of dualism for reasons that are not at all clear to me)
All of this, of course, begs the question of how to understand materialism after the advances of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. However at the same time one must confess that Mormon theology never really grapples with this issue until recently. (Indeed Blake Ostler's book is the only one I can think of that really engages the issue with any rigor - most discussions of modern physics gets the physics wrong)
The final section is really just a single paragraph on Mormon epistemology. This is unfortunate as I think it deserves far more. McMurrin simply says that Mormons believe the word to be intelligible and knowable, distrust philosophers, and doesn't believe in paradox the way that many traditional Christian theologies embrace. Those have far reaching implications. I'd say, based upon some of Brigham Young's various comments, that the distrust of philosophy is really less about philosophy than the way philosophy is often done. Put an other way, I think Mormonism instinctively adopts a thoroughgoing pragmatism. Further it probably is no surprise that those interested in LDS theology come from the hermeneutic tradition of Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida or Ricouer; from the process thought tradition of Whitehead, Hartshorne or Giffith; or from the pragmatic tradition of Peirce, James, and Dewey. All of these approaches to philosophy tend to have a deep abiding distrust in how philosophy has traditionally been done. We can probably throw in Nietzsche or Kierkegaard as well. Despite the emphasis on empiricism and materialism in Mormon theology, I think the real issue is a certain philosophical stance that we find especially in most 19th century philosophy. It is unfortunate that McMurrin doesn't touch on this despite frequently mentioning pragmatists and Whitehead.
Responses to other chapters in McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion can be found on our Reading Club page.
It's worth considering an institutional factor. There are LDS leaders who come from a scientific or medical background, but few or none who have any background in philosophy. That alone explains why metaphysics and philosophy in general gets no official sympathy but science is taken seriously.
Likewise, consider the background of those LDS scholars who participate in public debate. They tend to be from religious studies, history, or science, with a few social scientists thrown in. Philosophers keep a low profile. As I recall, just getting a philosophy department established at BYU was something of an issue.
I think that's true to a degree. However traditionally a classic education included a lot of philosophy. Especially reading Plato and Aristotle. I think there is evidence that Pratt and others read philosophy, although they clearly lacked a formal education nor continuous interaction with philosophers to help them refine their ideas. Still B. H. Roberts appears fairly well read as do others.
Regarding science though, while I think what you say describes the church up through the 40's, there really wasn't the embrace of science since. Although, to be fair, since the use of the book Mormon Doctrine got out of hand leaders have gone out of their way not to be speculative in public. (Somewhat unfortunately in many ways) There definitely are a lot of current leaders with backgrounds in science though.
If we consider the last 10 - 15 years though, I think many who do apologetics are trained in philosophy. Dr. Paulsen at BYU is one good example. Blake Ostler, while primarily a lawyer, has training in both microbiology and philosophy. He's done a lot of apologetics. I think quite a few others do as well.
If we go back earlier we have Chauncey Riddle who was a philosopher who did quite a lot of work around the valley. He didn't publish much, but that was because his prime was before the rise of FARMS. Nibley's reading in philosophy was narrow - mainly the classic Roman and Hellenistic figures. But while in certain ways some of his writings are "peculiar" those also tend to be ones never intended to be made public the way FARMS did. I've long thought someone ought to write a book on the philosophy and theology of Nibley. I think he's quite the Platonist myself. Even McMurrin himself, while not really a strongly believing Mormon, was a philosopher.
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