Customer Reviews

Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Sterling is comprehensive in his introductory comparisons of LDS theology to the history of philosophical theology in the West. This book explores the important inovations and contributions LDS theology makes to the larger framework of Christian theology. The book is a bit technical for those with no background in philosophy or theology, but perfect for the student of these subjects who wants to understand LDS philosophical perspectives. Included is an excellent appendix on the LDS concept of God.

Sterling Moss McMurrin (1914-1996) was a Mormon theologian and Philosophy professor at the University of Utah, who also served as United States Commissioner of Education in the administration of President John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of books such as Matters of Conscience: Conversations With Sterling M. McMurrin on Philosophy, Education, and Religion, Religion, Reason and Truth: Historical Essays in the Philosophy of Religion, Sterling M. McMurrin Lectures on Religion and Culture, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Tanner Lectures in Human Values) (Volume 1), etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1965 book, "The intention of this essay is to exhibit the distinctive character of Mormon theology that resides especially in the finitistic concept of God and the denial of the traditional doctrines of original sin and salvation by grace... It is not my purpose here to present a systematic statement of Mormon doctrine or either to justify or criticize it. Rather I have composed a comparative commentary that is intended simply to differentiate Mormon doctrine from the classical Christian theology..."

Here are some additional quotations from the book:

"Mormon theology is a modern Pelagianism in a Puritan religion. Mormonism is a Judaic-like community religion grounded in the Puritan moral doctrine that the vocation of man is to create the kingdom of God. Its fundamentalism is rooted in the biblical literalism native to American religion. Its heresy is the denial of the dogma of original sin." (Pg. x)
"It is perhaps not entirely inaccurate to describe Mormonism as a kind of naturalistic, humanistic theism." (Pg. 3)
"Mormonism teaches a strict dualism of the spirit and body; though they are both material, they are two different entities." (Pg. 6)
"God is a being among beings rather than BEING as such or the ground of being, and that he is therefore finite rather than absolute." (Pg. 29)
"Both the existence and nature of God are known by revelation only. In this way the primacy of revelation is protected." (Pg. 48)
"...the good of Adam's transgression lay not primarily in the setting of the stage for the abundant grace of Christ, but in the implementation of the moral freedom of human souls." (Pg. 74)
"Mormon theology is young and unsophisticated and is not overencumbered with creeds and official pronouncements." (Pg. 112)

I am not a philosophy student, but I found the book fascinating and well-written. It is best to carefully read the terminology definitions at the beginning and then read the book sequentially. The later chapters build on the earlier ones, culminating in a discussion of the nature of evil. The last section of the book contains a reprint of an earlier paper which mostly duplicates the first part of the book.

Two topics were most interesting to me. The first was the comparison of the nature of God between Mormon and Catholic or Protestant theology. The second was the explanation of evil in the world.

Dr. McMurrin explains that the Mormon belief is that the most basic part of each person, his or her "intelligence" or essential being, existed with God from the beginning and was not created by Him. This places Mormonism on a very different theological foundation than Catholic or Protestant religions. It also provides for a much different explanation of why "moral" evil and "natural" evil exist. It is clear that he was very interested in the question of evil and he deliberately structured the book so that the earlier chapters build the foundation for that final topic.

What is left out of the book, though, is a discussion of the meaning of revelation and its part in Mormon theology. I don't see how a book on Mormon theology is complete without dealing with the implications of God speaking to Man and telling him directly about His nature and the nature of His creations.

The book's strength is in its remarkable explanations of how Mormanism compares to other religions on several key theological points. That should be enlightening to both Mormon and non-Mormon readers. However, as a true theological explanation of Mormanism, I'm left thinking that something fundamental is missing and you'll need to turn to other books to fill the gap.

First of all, readers should read what Harold Bloom has to say in his book "The American Religion" which is available on Amazon. He quotes and discusses McMurrin's ideas.

It is true that LDS theology has two "branches" but to name them Technical and Prophetic is special pleading. "Technical" fits the second, prophetic, branch better in that it captures its similarity to conservative Christian churches - for example an unthinking interpretation of scriptures similar to those churches and following pastoral dictates without thinking. Call the first branch "Philosophical" if you like - it does approach the theology philosophically. Call the second branch "Conservative". It is questionable whether the bulk of the 12 million Church members can be assigned to the conservative second branch, unless that just means the unthinking sheep. I suspect that a fair number of Mormons want to think for themselves. Remember that Joseph Smith invited people of other religions to Nauvoo, including Muslims! Both branches look to the scriptures. They just interpret them differently. It is not really true that the Conservative branch focuses more on the scriptures. In fact there are older scriptures and thoughts of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young which the the Conservative branch ignores, avoids and minimizes in their attempt to be more like the American conservative Christian churches. LDS theology that is different from those churches, and is distinctively Mormon, is ignored.

As for miracles, McMurrin is not saying there are no miracles. He is saying that from God's perspective there are no miracles, which is a different thing altogether. That is really just saying that God knows what he is doing even if we don't. Joseph Smith really got into early Christianity and all its philosophical debates, and often his doctrines explicitly rejected orthodox Christianity's interpretations. Pelagius was condemned as a heretic for believing too much in good works rather than salvation by grace only, and any serious student of early Christianity knows his name. Most educated Roman Catholics would. LDS Authorities don't refer to him so, yes, most Mormons probably don't know the name. They just follow a Church that follows Pelagius' leanings, just as they follow the same leanings in the Epistle of James which many orthodox Christians (e.g. Martin Luther) dislike or ignore. One can say that McMurrin is using Joseph Smith filtered through B.H. Roberts, but why not say instead that McMurrin and Roberts are seeing Joseph Smith in a similar way?

I for one do not agree that McMurrin garbles the message. Scholars of early Christianity are all aware of the influence of Greek philosophy on the formation of orthodox Christianity. After all Jesus preached in a Hellenic Jewish influenced environment, and many if not most of the early Christian converts were such people. So why wouldn't Joseph Smith have taken that milieu and philosophy into account as well? I think it is the Philosophical branch that is addressing historical reality and the Conservative branch that is avoiding it.

Do not think of this as an A-Z explanation of Mormon dogma, but rather an analysis of essential Mormon beliefs about the nature of deity and how they fit within the context of traditional Christian philosophy. Dr. McMurrin covers many historical dilemmas in theology, such as the extent of God's power, original sin and the problem of evil, specifically addressing how Mormonism's unique synthesis of heresy and orthodoxy equip it to respond well to these challenges. He also addresses the level of awareness within Mormonism of these concepts, and how neo-orthodox movements in Mormonism have caused some to unwittingly distance themselves from its most beneficial doctrines.

This is an excellent book if you're looking for someone who can explain lds doctrine with the philosophical hodge-podge lingo commonly used in your philosophy classes.

Readers of this book should be familiar with sophisticated philosophic language and concepts. It uses too many multisyllable philosophy oriented words that are beyond my (twice college graduated-BS and MBA) capacity.

There are two branches of Latter-day Saint theology: The Technical and the Prophetic. The Technical theologians focus on man's eternal identity, tend to accept evolution, tend to be politically liberal, and explain the theology in philosophical terms. The Prophetic focus on the scriptures, the pedestrian duties of the church, repentance, are politically conservative, and speak with a prophetic, pastoral voice. Actors on the one stage are Sterling McMurrin, Orson Pratt, Elder B. H. Roberts, Elder John A. Widtsoe, and Dr. Truman Madsen; on the other stage are Presidents Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson, and Elders Boyd K. Packer and Bruce R. McConkie, and the bulk of the 12 million members of the Church.

This book follows this general pattern or template of trying to describe the Latter-day Saint theology in terms of philosophy. Granted, I am glad that someone is trying to make sense of such a complex and texturous religion. But in describing or explaining the religion in these philosophical terms, he distorts the message. Frankly, the Church of Jesus Christ possesses a uniqueness that defies any categorization. It is a pure quiddity!

Examples:

MIRACLES: "From the perspective of God there are no miracles." (p. 2). The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (LDS scripture) makes a large point about there being miracles (Moroni 10:24-26), and Elder McConkie, one of the Twelve Apostles, wrote, "In the ultimate sense, all that God does is a miracle."

PELAGIUS: "Indeed . . . Mormonism is essentially Pelagian in its theology." (p.82) I have read every published discourse of Joseph Smith, was born in the covenant, raised an active member, served a mission, and graduated from BYU, and it wasn't until my last semester of college, in an elective class that I heard of Pelagius. I have never heard any of the current Authorities of the Church use the word "Pelagius." I had to explain the word to my brother! So everyone in the Church is missing the essence?

FILTERED PROPHET: Another mistake, and this is a common one among many people, is that McMurrin is not using Joseph Smith, but Joseph Smith filtered through B. H. Roberts. In his discussion of "Intelligences" on page 108, he alludes to Joseph Smith, but the text he quotes is Robert's text. Several leaders, such a Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie have understood Joseph Smith's ideas differently, but McMurrin does not acknowledge that.

I appreciate the endeavor, but in using "traditional philosophical terminology," such as the platonic "being and becoming" (p. 11-13), he assumes that Joseph Smith's ideas would fit into Platonic assumptions. If the piece won't fit into the puzzle, reshape it. Then it is no longer the same piece. That is the hazard of trying to "translate" or "transpose" the theology into educraticeese, the message is garbled, and ultimately betrayed.