The second half of Ostler's summary of major Mormon theologians I have less to say about than the first half. This is partially because I just don't feel quite as fluent in the thought of these various thinkers, with the exception of the Pratts. It does, however, make me yearn for some series of books, each one covering a different Mormon theologian. All the existing histories tend to downplay the philosophical aspects of the theology. Perhaps first we really need to get down a little more regarding the range of what Mormon theological possibilities are. And of course, Ostler's book is an important first step in that regard.
I do have a few brief quibbles on these pages as well. Once again let me point out that Ostler's descriptions are relatively brief and I don't really have that much to object to his readings. As I said though, that is in part to simply not being well enough versed in the thought of these figures - a lot of which would probably require doing more than reading their major works. I do wish Ostler had included Brigham Young in the list of theologians though. While Young's thought is definitely focused towards an "anthropology" in many ways his comments often parallel various "common sense" philosophers such as the early Rorty - especially in terms of how they view philosophy and metaphysical speculation.
Getting back to my quibbles, my main one with respect to Pratt I've mentioned before. I'm not sure Pratt really believed in an emergent mind the way Ostler reads him. Rather I think Pratt's intelligent atoms are spatial extensions of mental processes, most closely resembling Leibniz' monads. Ostler mentions parallels to process thought - but the parallels are closer to Leibniz and the parallels to process thought are mainly due to the influence of Leibniz' monads on Whitehead's views. The big difference is that for both Pratt and Leibniz, the entities persist through time. That is they are metaphysically simple and the same entity exists at different points in time. Whitehead and most process theology takes a view of atoms of processes that perdue through time. That is entities are made up of smaller processes which may span time. But single entities don't persist through time.
I don't want to go too far down into a discussion of Leibniz and the Pratts. I do wish to say that I think Orson Pratt's view of minds is multiple atoms all being in the same mental state with those fundamental mental states being primitive and not emergent states. He might acknowledge some emergent states, but I suspect that those might best be seen as complex states that require parts. But the point he is trying to make is that two atoms become one when they mentally "behave" identically. i.e. they have the same intelligence, habits and so forth. I understand why Ostler wants to read him differently than this, and admittedly it is a small matter, but I think it ends up being important for Ostler's sense of God.
God for Pratt entails a certain kind of attributes. But if we overlook what "being-one" entails for Pratt, we miss how we become divine. Ostler tends to read Pratt as adopting a view somewhat similar to social trinitarianism in which God "emerges" out of the relations of the persons in the Godhead. But I think Pratt sees it as an infinite number of fully divine atoms, each of which has the full attributes of God. There is a Spirit spread through space (roughly influenced from the old 19th century view of the aether, I believe). This spirit is made up of diffuse intelligent atoms each with these divine attributes. Because they are diffuse they are in and through all things - meaning all second order entities. (i.e. bodies made upon of atoms) This allows omniscience since these divine atoms can communicate with each other. (Pratt allows for "time of communication" but doesn't appear to see how this renders some of his view problematic)
Now as I said, for a person, they are one when all the intelligent atoms making them up are one. i.e. indistinguishable except for their mechanistic properties of momentum and position, and possibly (although he is inconsistent here IMO) immediate knowledge. So let's say there are millions of these atoms making up the intelligent part of you. (Pratt is sometimes inconsistent between saying some atoms are intelligent and all atoms are intelligent) When you are truly unified in your person, all those atoms are in a kind of unity. This appears to be a stronger position than even Leibniz who had one dominant monad that "directed" the others, but wasn't one with them in this sense. (Indeed such a position goes against the fundamental logical premises Leibniz builds his system from)
If Pratt allows this for individuals (probably initially only our spirits, but in the resurrection our body as we are made perfect) we can see how this defines God. To be a God is to have all of the intelligent atoms making up one's permanent person identical mentally with the divine atoms. Pratt doesn't make God an emergence out of all atoms or even all divine persons. There is a non-personal spiritual substance, the aether, which is fully God in terms of atoms. Further the important first order properties are all identical. (There may be second order mental properties, I think Pratt would agree - but I don't think these are quite as significant as Ostler takes them. Once again this is not a clear point though)
I'd note, as Ostler brings up the problem of universals, that this enables Pratt to have universals in a Ockham like fashion while having the universals also be mental, much like a strong nominalist. All laws are habits developed between interactions of divine atoms and less intelligent atoms. Thus the divine dictates laws which function like regular laws we encounter in society. i.e. they presumably are primarily linguistic and act law-like to the degree they are habitual. There is a higher order of necessary law that we might properly call natural law. Those are the basic requirements of his mechanics. (I hesitate to say Newtonian, because I'm not sure what "logical" requirements Pratt requires of his atoms. i.e. energy conservation or momentum conservation. We know his atoms are impenetrable, but that appears the only fundamental law. How they move appears habitual beyond not being able to occupy the same space. There are some obvious logical problems here, but he doesn't address them in anything I've read by him.
Sorry to bore everyone too much with the Pratts, but I find some interesting ideas in the Pratts along with some glaring blind spots. I almost suspect there are some unpublished writings dealing with them. Yet in many of the "scientific" writings he produced Orson Pratt doesn't appear a competent physicist and is largely ignorant of science developed in the mid-19th century and a lot that is earlier.
Regarding the other figures Ostler mentions. I can't say much, beyond commenting that where these figures got in trouble theologically with the Church is at least as important, if not more important, than what they actually wrote. I'd say that Widstoe sounds much more interesting in Ostler's short treatment than I'd considered before. Indeed his conception of matter/energy and intelligence sounds very Nietzschean to me. I wonder if anyone has done a fuller analysis. However even in the quotes Ostler provides it doesn't sound like he has a really thought out view. It seems at times adopting the vitalist theories of late 19th century biology and attempting to reconcile it to relativity. But I've not read enough by Widstoe to be more than intrigued.
With regards to B. H. Roberts, I do wish Ostler had brought up more clearly Robert's fairly explicit Cartesianism. I think it fairly important for understanding his theology. Further, it clarifies the so-called "tripartite view of man" that is dominant to this day. (Intelligence - Spirit - Body) It ends up just being Cartesianism with an "extra body" in terms of the spirit body. I've not read enough Roberts to say, for sure, but I suspect that Cartesianism and the influence of early 20th century Cartesians, to be a significant factor in his conception of God. I think the bringing up of process thought might be somewhat misleading, although once again I'm too ignorant to be able to argue that.
The last section deals with what some have termed neo-orthodoxy - primarily Bruce R. McConkie. As Ostler presents this movement (which actually was fairly dominant and included many thinkers) it basically is the thesis that after one becomes divine, one can progress in terms of external relations but not internal relations. I keep having this nagging feeling this isn't right, but after reading through the writings of major figures in this movement I couldn't find anything I could point to and disagree. So perhaps he is right.
I admit that my bias, in reading these figures, is to read them as making vague and general statements and that to read ontology into them is a mistake. I honestly don't think they are concerned with the metaphysical implications of their descriptions than they are the ethical and lose pragmatic senses. (i.e. what effect do they have on the people who hear them in terms of trusting God) In a sense that then gets us back to Lectures on Faith, albeit read in a different way. I think there is a fundamental ambiguity in our theology at this point. Perhaps an ambiguity similar to the one which led the Greeks to read the Hebrew scriptures as if written in terms of Greek philosophy. If I am right though, Ostler here makes the same mistake, only that he criticizes the result of this mixing.
I recognize though that in this regard I may very well be completely wrong. The mere fact I can't offer any semblance of evidence for my suspicions suggests that Ostler's position is correct. And I certainly do recognize that these figures are read ontologically. And I've had encounters were people get quite upset if one doesn't read them as being aware of the ontological implications of their literalism. But if there is one place I wonder about theologically, it is the ontology of neo-orthodoxy.
Discussions on individual chapters from Blake Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of Godliness can be found on our Reading Club page.
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