Matt W. over at New Cool Thang is doing a John Widstoe reading club. I don't have much by Widstoe in my library and am far enough behind in other readings and writings so I won't contribute. (Speaking of behind I hope to have a few more posts on Blake's book - it's been over a month since I posted last on it) Widstoe is a fairly pivotal figure in LDS theology though. Even though Pratt, Roberts and McConkie tend to get more attention. Widstoe was, along with James Talmage, one of the very well educated early Mormons - getting a degree from Harvard with honors and teaching for years in various agriculture departments. As such he was a strong voice for science in the early church. Rational Theology is one of Widstoe's key writings although it is sadly out of print in the Signature edition.
Matt deals with the first few chapters. The first, on epistemology has Widstoe asserting that personal revelation comes "out of the directly unknown" but can be known as surely as "man-made instruments." That probably is more than a little strong. Roughly Widstoe characterizes it as a sixth sense which I find problematic. Both because this ties it to a rather naive view of how sensory acquisition works but also because it simply doesn't appear to function as a sense, contra Widstoe. Something much more subtle and complex is going on, which makes any appeal to this knowledge being akin to various empirical devices, like say a geiger counter, at best hyperbole.
Of course I'm going on distant memory of Widstoe along with Matt's summary.
With regards to fundamental metaphysics, Widstoe was a materialist with few surprises. He roughly adopts the scientific materialism from the end of the 19th century, with some later caveats for Relativity. So he sees the fundamental "stuff" out of which everything is formed as matter, energy and intelligence. In this he's not that far removed from say Orson Pratt - minus the panpsychism. So matter might have intelligence associated with it, but it need not be innate. Rather, one presumes, all matter exhibits intelligence or in more modern terms, design. But this "design" is more akin to how matter has energy. I can't recall off my head whether he goes Paley's direction ala modern ID. Certainly at a minimum though he thinks intelligence has acted on all matter. So even if there is randomness there ought be some "residue" of intelligence, even if it is just the kind of intelligence a rock I happened to have kicked on my way to work exhibits.
According to the quotes Matt presents Widstoe is a bit more skeptical of being able to say much about origins. Certainly not in the fashion that Orson Pratt did with his Leibniz like rationalization of intelligent atoms.
I should note that the book came out in 1915 so one shouldn't be surprised that a full dealing with relativity isn't present. I think the way he separates energy and matter is much more characteristic of later 19th century physics rather than modern physics.
Thanks for the write-up Clark. I'd clarify that the first chapter is really just a setup of definitions of terms like philosophy, theology, religion, and "the Gospel". Chapter 2 is where he gives his brief epistemology. the "6th Sense" Widtsoe discusses is pretty broad, encompassing intuition and any divinely transmitted knowledge. He lists the inspiration to both prophets and poets of being in this genre.
regarding the signature edition, I am somewhat disappointed in the attitude of the editor, in the forward to their edition. The Editor seems to be saying that Widtsoe lost touch with science and his high position of reason, where I'd say Widtsoe simply always had the more realistic stance that reason and the capacity to reason are not always going to come to the same conclusions due to diversity of POV, among other things.
I am still unsure of your reading of Widtsoe on intelligence. It seems to me that Widtsoe is merely saying the universe is ordered by some set of eternal laws, just as much or more so than it is ordered by God. I will post wednesday or so on the next chapters, which includes a discussion of the eternal laws and a discussion of God and Man.
I don't have Widstoe to refer to, so it may well be that I'm wrong about intelligence. That's how I read the quotes you provided. If I have time I'll do a bit more.
"I should note that the book came out in 1915 so one shouldn't be surprised that a full dealing with relativity isn't present
Why doesn't the Lord reveal something to the prophets that we don't already know?
Why would it be relevant to reveal either SR or GR? Further how could you reveal it without providing a lot of context? Finally, exactly what relevance is it to the average person?
In any case I think Widstoe himself would say his theological writings are his own views to attempt to figure out what has been revealed and some implications. So it's not surprising he doesn't attempt to deal with GR. (Especially when he's primarily a biologist, not a physicist)
I should add some claim that fac. 2 does make the basic claim that space and time are interrelated. "...which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit." I'm rather dubious though for a wide variety of reasons. (What, not mention of the speed of light as an absolute limit?) Further it may just be talking about orbits or something. It's too vague to really tie to SR or GR.
I don't think there is necessarily a lot of need to reveal those things. Then again, it seems 90% of what was revealed is ignored today and an important revelation concerns personal grooming or something general like being nice and having faith.
If you've ever picked through the Journal of Discourses, there is a whole lot of revelation. Even, as you add, there are deep revelations in the BOA. So since there have been so many nutty sounding revelations, most of which have been shelved, why not throw us a bone and give us something unnecessary, but yet impressive.
And God, no doubt, could even reveal the right language and give us the context.
Isn't that caught up in the theology of divine hiddenness? That is if God did do something that clear then it would make belief in him the default view with no necessary faith on the part of the believer. Further one could argue from the LDS perspective that the divine hiddenness is necessary for our personal development.
So while I suppose God could have revealed Misner, Thorne and Wheeler rather than the Book of Mormon, and it would have been pretty convincing, it's probably not in his best interests to do so. (Ditto with giving the plates so anyone could verify that there were Nephites)
Matt found a link to an e-text of Widstoe. It's very...vague.
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