McMurrin starts out his section on the nature of man by
differentiating the Mormon view of man from other religions. We
don't believe that man is ontologically created by God.
Rather man is in some sense "uncreated, underived, and unbegun."
McMurrin suggests this isn't only at odds with mainstream
Christianity's view of an ex nihilo creation but also at
odds with most of philosophy. I think this is an exaggeration
somewhat, given the place of Platonism in historic thought. Still
one must admit that, at least in the west, the Christian
theological trajectory since Origen has tended to have a particular
view of God and souls. To the extent philosophers differed, it was
typically to throw out the immortal soul entirely. One should,
however, point out, that platonisms of various guises did
constantly erupt in the intellectual history of the west. One also
shouldn't ignore the more eastern traditions which frequently have
immortal souls of various sorts. I can't really speak much to
those traditions, beyond that the typical Mormon view clearly is at
odds with many eastern ideas of the soul, if only in terms of
denying multiple rebirths in this world.
The most interesting section in McMurrin is his existential comments. He brings up Paul Tillich who apparently argues for a kind of essential existential angst for humans because we are contingent beings. In other words not only are we thrown into this world, but we could be thrown out of it into non-being at any moment. While I'm not sure, this sounds like an interesting riff on the analysis of death by Heidegger in Being and Time. I'm not sure I necessarily buy that. Of course I'd also say that Heidegger's analysis doesn't require the actual total death of the person, merely the dread that it is possible. But I can see how Tillich's notion of contingent creation would lead him to that reading. Clearly McMurrin is right in that this view that we aren't contingent beings will affect how Mormons look at existence itself. Exactly how isn't clear. And I sense that McMurrin is looking in vain for some tangible political or ethical implication of the Mormon ontology.
Having said that though I did find it interesting that McMurrin never brought up the 19th century theology that people could be "destroyed" by returning them to the elements from which they were organized. This theology, while certainly not formal LDS theology was taught rather frequently by figures such as Brigham Young. In speaking of sons of perdition who experience the second death, he taught,
"I told you some time ago what would become of such men. But I will quote the Scriptures on this point, and you can make what you please of it. Jesus says, he will destroy death and him that hath the power of it. What can you "make of this but decomposition, the returning of the organized particles to their native element, after suffering the wrath of God until the time appointed . . . When the elements in an organized form do not fill the end of their creation, they are thrown back again, like brother Kimball's old pottery ware, to be ground up, and made over again ... And if he [Jesus] ever makes 'a full end of the wicked,' what else can he do than entirely disorganize them and reduce them to their native element?" (Journal of Discourses 1:275)
Of course most modern Mormons don't accept these aspects of Brigham's theology and consider them speculation. I suspect most modern Mormons either latch on to a view akin to either Orson Pratt or B. H. Roberts where the "intelligence" of man is an indestructible, uncreated "self." For Roberts this ultimate self is a Cartesian mind. For Pratt it is a material atom with the features of Leibniz' monads. While Pratt probably could admit a destruction somewhat in line with Brigham Young, there would be a self that couldn't be destroyed, even if the self as we consider it is an emergent entity as this ultimate atom is the head of a community of other intelligent atoms. For Roberts, given his Cartesian views, I suspect to talk of an emergent self makes little sense. There is our self and then there is the various organizations of matter it directs. For Young, however, it sounds like the ultimate elements of the universe is intelligence itself. Not intelligent atoms as proto-selves. But rather intelligence probably more akin to what we see in neoPlatonism. Which isn't to argue that his view is very much like Plotinus' view. However I don't think Brigham's conception of man has been sufficiently analyzed before.
My point is less about what the various range of theologies of man have been in history than it is that there is a wide range of views. McMurrin, perhaps wisely, limits himself to a vague sense of what Mormon theology teaches. He primarily limits himself to the scriptures and a few statements of Joseph Smith. Primarily he focuses only on the teaching that we are, in some sense or part, necessary uncreated beings like God.
Even limiting oneself to this level of analysis, this clearly provides many implications. For one there appears no ontological gap between man and God. There may well be a huge divide, but I don't think we ought to say this is an ontological gap. Nonetheless, as McMurrin points out this is a radical heresy to other Christians. Yet it falls out naturally for our denial of creation ex nihilo.
What I think McMurrin tries to bring out from this is how this Mormon conception of man naturally leads to a kind of unique liberalism and humanism. Even the most radical humanist of the Renaissance still viewed man as contingent. Once you remove that conception, then the ultimate foundation for ones salvation does reset in a certain sense on man. I think that McMurrin perhaps overstates this somewhat. After all the Mormon thinker will merely reply that while man might have to potential for divinity, he can never reach it on his own. God is necessary to bring man to his potential. Still one must say that the Mormon view does seem to place human freedom (however conceived) in a more elevated position than many other views. Freedom can not be given but is always had. As McMurrin points out, however, Mormons used ontological belief to arrive at a kind of liberalism typical of American political and ethical views rather than something terribly unique. That the grounds might be different does not seem to have affected how Mormons on a practical level view ourselves.
Responses to other chapters in McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion can be found on our Reading Club page.
Clark, I read through the whole "nature of man" section a week ago. I think he called the Mormon view of an uncreated, eternally existing self the "fundamental difference" between Mormon and Christian theology. But that's about the fifth "fundamental difference" he has identified so far. But maybe this is the real one.
The whole "preexistence-Council in Heaven-organizing planet Earth" saga depends on uncreated selves (or at least preexisting selves) with powers of observation and agency. The Mormon sense of kinship with (rather than distance from) God seems to flow from that conception as well. To the extent Mormons "think differently" than orthodox Christians, I think the "uncreated self" idea may be the best single concept for explaining it.
My perception of the Mormon view of preexistence, spirits, and "intelligences" was shaped by a Truman Madsen book (I think the title was Eternal Man). That seems to express the generally prevailing Mormon view, which is pretty much in line with Roberts' view that you noted. I haven't come across any references in LDS sources which reflect agreement with Pratt's intelligent atoms concept. Since the elements that compose our bodies cycle, it's not like the atoms that compose me are the same atoms that composed me three years ago. And I don't see how organismal intelligence can reasonably be attributed to transient elements.
I agree that McMurrin has a tad too many "fundamental differences." Further, the point about Brigham Young I brought up tends to make the nature of man more problematic as a fundamental difference. i.e. it is not necessarily the case that we always existed as what we tend to think of a self. That is, the fundamental nature of man seems rather open in LDS thought. What isn't open is that this fundamental nature be uncreated. But that tends to lead one to think that the important aspect of the nature of man is actually entailed by the rejection of creation ex nihilo. That the nature of man isn't quite the significant difference some make it seems indicated by the fact in practical matters Mormon line up fairly well with American protestants. Some might roll to one side or the other, but there really isn't as big a difference as one might expect.
I do agree that the whole pre-mortal life is a big difference. But this is less a difference within philosophy than it is with claimed history. I think it does affect how we view responsibility, evil, and so forth. I also think that, if only psychologically, it affects how we perceive life. Yes a Calvinist might argue that being predetermined by God ought not affect how we view morality. But I think it fair to say it does, whether it ought to or not. And yes, many liberal protestants adopt a strong libertarian ethos, much like Ostler argues for. In many ways that does parallel Mormon thought. But overall I think the practical matters get overstated a bit, something I hadn't thought about until this chapter of McMurrin.
Regarding influence, I agree that Roberts perspective is very influential. Indeed I'd suggest his tripartite view of man is nearly the de facto belief. I'd say though that there is still a strong undercurrent of panpsychism in Mormon folk theology. (I noticed it a lot while at BYU in the early 90's) That all comes from Pratt. Even if Pratt's fundamental ontology isn't brought up, I think that many aspects of his thought are strong undercurrents in LDS thought. But you are right in that I think most people have problems with Pratt particularly because he buys into the pre-field theory view of atoms. No one buys that so it is ignored. Brigham Young's views, while in certain ways the most interesting, are largely discarded. Which is why I suspect McMurrin rarely brings them up.
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