McMurrin concludes the main part of his book with a brief overview titled "On the Task of Mormon Theology." I've held off commenting on it until I was a little less sleep deprived because I think it an interesting topic. Theology has always been downplayed in the church. Even the classic text on theology, from early in the Church's evolution, Lectures on Faith, adopts a stance towards theology that is quite unlike what we see in most theological texts. Our stance towards things theological is to start from an anthropology rather than an ontology as such. McMurrin points this out and add that Mormonism's conception of man really goes well beyond what one finds in either Protestantism or even secular Humanism. We simply place man's possibility so much higher than nearly any other movement I can think of.
One consequence of this, to which McMurrin alludes, is often speculation regarding the future of humanity that is often ungrounded and perhaps irresponsible. That applies equally to the past of man. Indeed all too often speculations as to the pre-mortal life of humanity can create class distinctions which can have tragic real-world consequences. I can recall off the top of my head speculations espousing social or even racial superiority, the idea of "soul mates," or any other number of disturbing notions. The fact that most of these ideas are condemned by the church at various times doesn't seem to diminish Mormon's appetites for engaging in speculation. While Mormons are quite to cast derision on metaphysical speculation (or an over-focus on such matters) I think that Mormons have their own dangerous abyss we need always keep in mind.
Even if, as McMurrin suggests, such speculations are due to a basic optimism regarding the nature of humanity, I do think we need temper such notions. Having said that though, I think that there are many practical real world effects to this basic optimism towards our nature. Indeed I think that just as one can speak historically of a protestant work ethic, or the effects on the development American self-identity in terms of Calvinist notions of being chosen of God, we too can speak of the effects of the Mormon conception of being gods in embryo and the idea that we can turn any hell into a heaven. (A statement of Joseph Smith which I think manifests this extremely optimistic view of human nature) While McMurrin doesn't really deal with it much, I think this basic Mormon view can be found in some of Joseph's contemporaries - especially the transcendentalists such as Emerson. Perhaps Mormonism pushes it in directions Emerson wouldn't have, but that divine view of Man really is quite interesting.
Were I to praise McMurrin, it would be for focusing in on that basic anthropological conception of theology. If there is a failure of McMurrin, it is in not really being able to express the distinction between a basically anthropological view of theology in opposition to a more ontological view of theology. I think his failures end up occurring because he keeps trying to analyze the one in terms of the other. This is, perhaps, understandable. He's trying to compare Mormon theology, as yet still largely undeveloped in the 1950's, to the standard approaches of theology in nearly 2000 years of general Christian history.
The last part of McMurrin's comments is an interesting one. He asserts, incorrectly I think, that conservativism tends to emphasis a pessimistic view of human nature, what liberalism does the opposite. Thus, the Mormonism he likes, is a liberal Mormonism with its emphasis on an unbounded human nature. Reading between the lines, one can't help but suspect that the more legalistic aspect of religion with a focus on "thou shalt not..." bothers him. I've touched upon this before. But I think that in many ways McMurrin wants Mormonism to be a kind of super-secular humanism and is quite disappointed that it doesn't live up to that preconception. If there is a fundamental bias in the work, that is it. And I do think it undermines, or at least muddles, his analysis in various places.
The final comments, regarding the challenges ahead (in 1958) is also interesting and rather insightful. He talks about the problem of history and unraveling what is myth from what is "reality." Further he suggests that in the future this would be more and more necessary. I think this prediction definitely panned out. Indeed it is in trying reconcile itself to a kind of historical necessity of naturalism that we find much of modern Mormon intellectualism focusing itself. FARMS and related apologetic movements clearly demonstrate this. Further, I think that overall the period when Mormon thought embraced a move towards absolutism also was predicted by McMurrin. If the early part of the 20th century and the scientism and perhaps even positivism of Widstoe, Roberts, Talmage and others quickly came up against the theological limits of that move, so to did the following period where absolutism was entertained. It seems that the period of the last decade or two has seen a more balanced, and perhaps nuanced view. Further, I think it interesting that by focusing on a basic questioning of history, it has returned to an anthropology.
Perhaps the final paragraph is an apt summary of recent trends in Mormon thought along with an outline of what still remains.
But wherever the Mormon theologian turns and to whatever tasks, for a long time to come he must work within the difficult but interesting context of a body of thought and attitude that is an unique and uneasy union of nineteenth-century liberalism with fourth-century Christian fundamentalism.
Responses to other chapters in McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion 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