Where Is The Serious Mormon Theology?

[HiJolly]

Do you mind if I make it my facebook status?

Beat you to it, Nyah Nyah Nyah!! ...of course I didn't ask for permission...

HJ

[TAO]

...you don't think they do, at least, some philosophy? Have you ever watched General Conference? Have you taken a Critical Thinking class?

Elguanteloko, I am guessing Heavenly Father can be rather logical at times too.

Ultimately, I would say, whether it is good advice or revelation, or a combination of both, it is good for me to listen to and absorb =D. If you know what I mean. =P

Best Wishes,

TAO

[mfbukowski]

Goofing off? Should be something very much explored by everyone, in my opinion.

Actually your comments about language recently in various threads got me thinking about it and playing around with it more in my own wee mind so you can claim I derived the thought from you...at least in part....if you want.

Well the bottom line is that you must be on the right track if you took my garbled version of Dewey and were able to figure out one of his positions you had not heard of yet!

That really indicates that you are taking it and thinking independently and coming to the same insights. Pretty good stuff!

[mfbukowski]

For calmoriah:

Dewey has two main points in this chapter: that science is an art, and that art is a “practice.” The only distinction between modes of practice should be between those that are intelligent and give immediate enjoyment through charged meaning, including fine art, and those that do not (358). If this distinction was maintained art would then be seen as the culmination of natural processes, and “science” (improperly so called) as merely a helpful means for achieving this end. The various dualisms of nature and experience, art and science, and so forth, would disappear.

Dewey believed that art unifies the necessary and the free aspects of nature, and thus that artistic acts are both inevitable and spontaneous. Unexpected combination is required for art: order and proportion are not the whole story. The more extensive the uniformities of nature in art, the greater the art, as long as they are fused with our wonder for the new.....

Dewey holds that thinking itself is an art. Propositions that express knowledge are as much works of art as statues and symphonies. Conclusions are matters of condensed meaning, while premises result from analysis of conclusions into their grounds. Scientific method is the art of constructing true perceptions. Science is not seen as art in our society because it is artificially protected, is limited to a particular class of persons, and is seen as brutal and mechanical. This is coupled with the view that criticism a pedantic expression of merely personal taste. Dewey believes that this dichotomy needs to be overcome, and that to do this we need discriminating judgment.....

In “Affective Thought,” Dewey argues against separation between physiological processes and high culture, between art and science, and between thought and emotion. When these dualisms hold, the resultant compartmentalization leaves little room for living life for its own sake. Psychology shows that reasoning is not just intellectual but is based on a play of intellectual and affective activities. When the organism's (e.g., a human's) relation to its environment is disturbed it desires activity. The disturbance is only resolved when the organism reaches a new equilibrium. Reasoning is a phase in this process. It finds material to satisfy needs in our habits and in past experience. Ends are to be understood in terms of the needs of the organism, not by referring to some higher power. Although there are no deep differences between science and art, the logic of art is especially characterized by subtlety and scope. Art-viewers respond strongly to art because the generation of art is guided by unconscious activities. Deep habits are used in new ways, and this causes art to be liberating and expansive.....

In art, man uses the materials and energies of nature to expand life. Art is proof that man can consciously restore the union of sensation, needs, and actions found in animal life. Consciousness adds regulation, selection and variation to this process. The idea of art is, then, humanity's greatest accomplishment. The Greeks distinguished order from matter, and man from the rest of nature, by way of art. Art, for them, was the guiding ideal for humankind. For Dewey, historically, science was developed as a means to generate other arts, and ultimately it is only their handmaiden.....

Dewey thought that those who reject the continuity between everyday experience and fine art fail to see that matter is needed to realize ideals. Nature is man's habitat, and culture endures because men find a support for it in nature. Culture results from prolonged, cumulative interaction with the environment. We deeply respond to art because of its connection with both cultural and natural experience.

Rather than giving art primacy in aesthetic, Dewey believes that humans only feel properly alive when absorbing the aesthetic features of nature. Aesthetic experience of the natural environment can even take the form of ecstatic communion. This is due to ancient habits gained in the relations between the living being and its environment. Sensuous experience can absorb into itself meanings and values that are designated “ideal” or “spiritual.” Dewey observes that belief that nature is full of spirits is closely tied to poetry. The sensuous surfaces of things incorporate not only what is given by the senses but the most profound insight. Many of the arts originate in primitive rituals which were not simply intended as means to get rain, etc., but for the enhancement of experience. Similarly myth was not just an early form of science.

Dewey concludes that the idea of the supernatural is more a function of the psychology that generates works of art than of science or philosophy. This can be seen by the solemn processions and other artistic phenomena in churches. As Keats rightly observed, any reasoning that excludes imagination and the embodiment of ideas in emotionally charged sense cannot reach truth. For Keats, “truth” meant wisdom, which in turn meant trust in the good. All we need to know, to translate his famous saying, is the insight of imagination exemplified in beauty. It is not surprising then that moments of intense aesthetic perception were Keats's ultimate solace. The philosophy of Keats, shared by Dewey, accepts life with all its uncertainty and turns that experience into art.

There's plenty more where that came from!

[Mudcat]

Here's the thing, Mudcat. We don't seem to choose what we are going to believe for the most part. Can you, right now, choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Not just state it but believe it. I can't, brother. There wasn't a time I "chose" to stop believing in God and the Church, I just stopped believing and stopped finding it convincing.

Bold mine, just exploring your thought process here. I understand you have left the CoJCoLDS, but are you a determinist now? Just want to make sure I am reading you correctly.

That aside, other than to say I believe in freedom of the will, I would say that 2+2 never equals 5. However, religious claims are not as cut and dried as basic math. Questions like, "Does God exist?" of "Was Christ resurrected?" are more complex.

Your 2+2=5 is certainly falsifiable. However statements like ... "God exists." , "God doesn't exist.", "Christ arose.", "Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God." are unfalsifiable. Those things are mathematically quantifiable. There are no pat rules to address them. We can't prove any of those statements in the same sense we could make a geometric proof of something.

haha! I happen to know some that would agree.

Given some of the LDS responders on your thread, your "haha" is quite appropriate.

I know is not the first time I get this wrong but I thought you were a member. IIRC, I incorrectly took you for a member before.

I am an Evangelical, but I understand the mistake. My theology varies from the norm a bit so that may have thrown you off. Also, my wife and her family is LDS. I try to use the language that fits the audience.. "LDS" instead of "Mormon", "Personage" when applicable, that sort of thing.

You sound like a guy who likes to figure out who he is dealing with. Theologically, Bill Craig and I share a number of views. But for the most part I am still working on my theology.

edited for syntax - added "not" (in bold)

[Calm]

For calmoriah:

There's plenty more where that came from!

Dewey thought that those who reject the continuity between everyday experience and fine art fail to see that matter is needed to realize ideals.

Thus the role that ritual can play in adding meaning to mundane activities by turning something as simple as a meal into fine art by turning it into ritual (think Japanese tea ceremony, the Passover seder, etc).

[Calm]

But for the most part I am still working on my theology.

And a fine work of art is it so far.

[mfbukowski]

And a fine work of art is it so far.

When you really "get" this stuff- you will never see anything the same again! It is a total paradigm shift for all you know as "reality"!

[Mudcat]

I think you are totally right on this one.

I think that Protestants in general, have a better comprehension of this than we do because they are, pretty frankly, followers of men they see as imperfect yet inspired- Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, etc., whereas perhaps we expect our "prophets" to be perfect, or because of the title, at least others do.

Yet we know that the "prophets of old" were not perfect either.

But I also find it ironic that we are often attacked by Protestants who find fault with Joseph, while their own leaders and founders were far from perfect themselves, and it appears they cannot see that.

Maybe you can shed some light on that?

I don't think there is much light to shed on it other than to say you may be misunderstanding the issue. No offense.

Most Protestants may accept parts or all of the theological statements of Luther, Calvin, etc. as the best interpretation of correct theology, however it is not a carte blanche acceptance. In example, it isn't because Luther said something that it becomes correct. Rather, many Christians feel a lot of what Luther said matched up with the truth.

In regards to your question, the key issue at hand is, the perception of the Protestant is not that they follow an individual like Luther, Calvin, etc. In fact, to do so would be to commit the same error that we believed was made in the RCC with it's institution of mortal head of the Church. Rather we would something more like that Christ is temporal and eternal head of the Church.

Protestants believe no man, save Christ alone, can accommodate or should accommodate such a position. Yes Protestants recognize the fallibility of men and for this reason understand that imperfect men are not fit to lead the Church in a corporate sense and we feel that role of leadership is reserved unto Christ via the Holy Spirit in the here and now.

LDS, however seem to want to institute a similar paradigm to what Protestants fought to get away from. I don't think Protestants are being blindsided towards past Protestants like Luther, Zwingli and so on. Rather these men are viewed in a much different light than LDS view their Prophets.

edit add...

I may add a bit more of a response when I get to your next question. Its been fun, but I am worn out for the night.

Good night John Boy.

[mfbukowski]

Thus the role that ritual can play in adding meaning to mundane activities by turning something as simple as a meal into fine art by turning it into ritual (think Japanese tea ceremony, the Passover seder, etc).

Again, you are right on.

You will find there are many links between Dewey and Eastern thought.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think there is much light to shed on it other than to say you may be misunderstanding the issue. No offense.

Most Protestants may accept parts or all of the theological statements of Luther, Calvin, etc. as the best interpretation of correct theology, however it is not a carte blanche acceptance. In example, it isn't because Luther said something that it becomes correct. Rather, many Christians feel a lot of what Luther said matched up with the truth.

In regards to your question, the key issue at hand is, the perception of the Protestant is not that they follow an individual like Luther, Calvin, etc. In fact, to do so would be to commit the same error that we believed was made in the RCC with it's institution of mortal head of the Church. Rather we would something more like that Christ is temporal and eternal head of the Church.

Protestants believe no man, save Christ alone, can accommodate or should accommodate such a position. Yes Protestants recognize the fallibility of men and for this reason understand that imperfect men are not fit to lead the Church in a corporate sense and we feel that role of leadership is reserved unto Christ via the Holy Spirit in the here and now.

LDS, however seem to want to institute a similar paradigm to what Protestants fought to get away from. I don't think Protestants are being blindsided towards past Protestants like Luther, Zwingli and so on. Rather these men are viewed in a much different light than LDS view their Prophets.

edit add...

I may add a bit more of a response when I get to your next question. Its been fun, but I am worn out for the night.

Good night John Boy.

Good answer, and I appreciate it. It was no accident that it was those Protestant Pilgrims that gave us the Mayflower compact which became the USA (oversimplified obviously) and "rugged individualism".

Fair enough, I get it.

Buenos noches, Bro- catch you manana

[Bernard Gui]

I've always liked what Orson Scott Card said, that Mormons live by stories more than theology.

That's because we believe in a very real presence of a living Father in Heaven and see his actions

in our daily lives as evidence of his existence and love. Hard to derive that from theology.

Bernard

[elguanteloko]

That's because we believe in a very real presence of a living Father in Heaven and see his actions

in our daily lives as evidence of his existence and love.

If you believe that there are miracles in your daily life and that that should count as evidence for his existence and love, then that is a theological conclusion.

Hard to derive that from theology.

It's quite easy, actually, just as it is quite easy to derive ANYTHING you want from philosophy. The problem is that most of those "easy conclusions" are the least stable under scrutiny, the most absurd, and the least convincing when brought to consciousness. You aren't escaping from theology but just saying you aren't doing it. This sounds like an obese person who overeats three times a day but doesn't recognize that's a problem. To see clearly what you are doing is the first step in becoming better.

[Calm]

Again, you are right on.

You will find there are many links between Dewey and Eastern thought.

I'll have to put him at the top of my list for reading philosophy. Up till now it's been hard for me to get into because I haven't found any systems that correspond all that well to how I see life working out in front of me.

My mom got me into Jung when I was about 10 so I've always been fascinated by patterns, symbols, archetypes plus Mom was fascinated with playing with language...puns and double meanings and such and I got myself into studying mythologies and religions as early as I can remember being allowed to choose my own books at the library and I really got into the idea of turning the mundane into the sacred (or fine art) from the Frugal Gourmet when he talked about his experiences with others involving preparing food and eating...first cooking/reality show I ever got into lol and only one for a long time. My mother was also trained as an artist and she has always decorated our rooms as functional art and every meal was truly a work of art for the tongue, eye and nose. I've taken it further by creating rooms that tell stories and have been pleased with the results (people tell me they find my rooms both restful and intriguing as there is always something to look at no matter where one's eyes fall but without competition since everything works together). I was doing this somewhat unconsciously originally but living in the result has given me a very practical lesson on making those magical correspondences that let me place myself both in and above my environment.

And then several years ago when Rough Stone Rolling came out, Bushman's description of what Joseph was trying to achieve, to bring the Celestial down to us in the here and now, really struck a chord with me and I've been attempting to interpret and create life in such a fashion ever since. Also Card's comment that LDS do stories, not theology or whatever he said (iow narrative theology)....I really do need to go to bed now. I so understand the appeal of the living a Druid life for Nathair as I've been trying to create my own version for most of my life.

[HiJolly]

If you believe that there are miracles in your daily life and that that should count as evidence for his existence and love, then that is a theological conclusion.

So personal experience is factual? If theology requires reason, and reason requires logic, and logic requires "true" postulates and "true" facts... Then you're ok with subjective perceptions as being "true" facts? Really?

It's quite easy, actually, just as it is quite easy to derive ANYTHING you want from philosophy. The problem is that most of those "easy conclusions" are the least stable under scrutiny, the most absurd, and the least convincing when brought to consciousness.

But... That's confusing, don't you think? It feels like you are talking from both sides of your mouth. It's factual, but absurd and not convincing... Hmmm...

You aren't escaping from theology but just saying you aren't doing it. This sounds like an obese person who overeats three times a day but doesn't recognize that's a problem. To see clearly what you are doing is the first step in becoming better.

If one is not using reason but instead is using experience to make a statement of belief, then by your own definition, it is not theology. Show me, please, where this is not correct.

HiJolly

[Magyar]

Perhaps philosophy and revelation are like matter and anti-matter and cannot exist together.

I've always found the quote in my tagline intriguing, from Josephus.

[HiJolly]

Perhaps philosophy and revelation are like matter and anti-matter and cannot exist together.

I've always found the quote in my tagline intriguing, from Josephus.

I think I agree. Everything I've learned of Philosophy seemed to discount revelation as non-rational, thus excluding God as a part of wisdom. Not a good idea.

HJ

[mfbukowski]

I'll have to put him at the top of my list for reading philosophy. Up till now it's been hard for me to get into because I haven't found any systems that correspond all that well to how I see life working out in front of me.

My mom got me into Jung when I was about 10 so I've always been fascinated by patterns, symbols, archetypes plus Mom was fascinated with playing with language...puns and double meanings and such and I got myself into studying mythologies and religions as early as I can remember being allowed to choose my own books at the library and I really got into the idea of turning the mundane into the sacred (or fine art) from the Frugal Gourmet when he talked about his experiences with others involving preparing food and eating...first cooking/reality show I ever got into lol and only one for a long time. My mother was also trained as an artist and she has always decorated our rooms as functional art and every meal was truly a work of art for the tongue, eye and nose. I've taken it further by creating rooms that tell stories and have been pleased with the results (people tell me they find my rooms both restful and intriguing as there is always something to look at no matter where one's eyes fall but without competition since everything works together). I was doing this somewhat unconsciously originally but living in the result has given me a very practical lesson on making those magical correspondences that let me place myself both in and above my environment.

And then several years ago when Rough Stone Rolling came out, Bushman's description of what Joseph was trying to achieve, to bring the Celestial down to us in the here and now, really struck a chord with me and I've been attempting to interpret and create life in such a fashion ever since. Also Card's comment that LDS do stories, not theology or whatever he said (iow narrative theology)....I really do need to go to bed now. I so understand the appeal of the living a Druid life for Nathair as I've been trying to create my own version for most of my life.

Well I think you have quite an adventure ahead.

One area you might look into also is the philosophy behind the Bauhaus movement in Germany in the 20's and 30's- don't know if you are aware of that, but I am sure your mom is, and Frank Loyd Wright, and the Craftsman movement- many interesting ideas related to what you are into. (My academic background is in Art History and Philosophy both)

Also, there are unquestionable affinities between Mormonism and Pragmatism which I am not the first to notice. One of the founders of Pragmatism was Willam James, a philosopher and psychologist, and here is a link to an article about him in a Mormon context.

James' father was Henry James, the famous writer, was a Swedenborgian, dunno if you are acquainted with their doctrine, but some have made the case that Joseph Smith was, through one channel or another, heavily influenced by their doctrine.

One of William James most famous works is his "Varieties of Religious Experience" in which he discusses the validity of religious experience- ideas which must be serious considered for any Mormon who is into philosophy imo.

Clearly, at least imo, it is from this seed that "real" Mormon theology could emerge and from these seeds develop into the "stone" to roll forth and influence the entire earth. It was actually from my studies of Pragmatism that I found Mormonism - and found it put together all the notions I had accumulated from years of philosophical study into an actual church. You can imagine my shock! On the other hand "Mormon culture" can be frustrating at times, growing out of Protestant fundamentalism.

McMurrin was essentially a Pragmatist, but he went down the wrong road eventually.

This is not an accident- Pragmatism is often referred to as "American philosophy", and of course Mormonism is an "American religion" so it is not surprising that the entire American Weltanschauung is expressed both in Pragmatism and Mormonism.

But we are a new church, and it takes a few hundred years for any serious theology to develop anywhere- and usually it borrows from the prevailing philosophical views of its day. Early Christianity did, the Reformation did, and we will, like it or not. People think and want "answers" and it is up to the "artists" of the day to create the thought/reality and cobble together something reasonable out of the cultural milieu in which they find themselves. Prophets are not theologians, usually- one must be an intuitive mystic to be a prophet- but then it takes the logical guys to come in and tidy up the place and put everything into neat little rational stacks!

Of course Pragmatism has developed from it's 19th century roots, and there is plenty of room for a theology to develop from the philosophical directions Pragmatism has taken since the 19th century, including certain brands of what is today called "realism", though I don't like those textbook labels because every philosopher expresses every bit of philosophy he has ever read into his own world view anyway- they are impossible to categorize, and anyone who tries will inevitably get it wrong.

But I think it is a very exciting time in the development of Mormon theology. We are just now in the delivery room looking into the eyes of a newborn, and it will take hundreds of years for him to grow up!

[mfbukowski]

I think I agree. Everything I've learned of Philosophy seemed to discount revelation as non-rational, thus excluding God as a part of wisdom. Not a good idea.

HJ

Read William James- Varieties of Religious Experience

[HiJolly]

Read William James- Varieties of Religious Experience

I'm on page 64. It's slow going, because I want to be sure I understand what he's saying. And I'm not a psychologist.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[mfbukowski]

This is the one I was looking for, Paulsen on the God of Abraham, Issac and William James:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_speculative_philosophy/v013/13.2paulsen.html

Pretty definitive.

I would recommend this article to anyone who thinks that the notion of "First Cause" or any of scholastic philosophy makes sense for Mormons.

(it doesn't!)

[zerinus]

I think I agree. Everything I've learned of Philosophy seemed to discount revelation as non-rational, thus excluding God as a part of wisdom. Not a good idea.

HJ

That depends on whose philosophy you are talking about. There is not just one philosophy. There are as many philosophies as there are philosophers, and some of them have been staunch believers in God. Some have even have tried to devise logical "proofs" for the existence of God.

[Calm]

Well I think you have quite an adventure ahead.

One area you might look into also is the philosophy behind the Bauhaus movement in Germany in the 20's and 30's- don't know if you are aware of that, but I am sure your mom is, and Frank Loyd Wright, and the Craftsman movement- many interesting ideas related to what you are into. (My academic background is in Art History and Philosophy both)....

James' father was Henry James, the famous writer, was a Swedenborgian, dunno if you are acquainted with their doctrine, but some have made the case that Joseph Smith was, through one channel or another, heavily influenced by their doctrine.

It does really seem my experience is perfect for getting into this stuff. Besides Jung, my mother taught me about Swedenborg plus I have actually read William James' Varieties of Religious Experience (think he's even on my bookshelf) but it was in high school so I don't remember it much but that it was decent. Frank Lloyd Wright is my favourite architect and the Craftsman movement my favourite style though alas I've not been able to find much of that style at a price we could afford over the years. Maybe with the next house.

I've identified myself as Pragmatist from what I have read in philosophy over the years, but have been reluctant to get into to it due to past experiences during my trial and error reading days (much nicer when someone directs you to good books rather than just having to rely on what is on the library shelf). I will go dig out James' Varieties and start with that simply for easy access and then move on from there after getting my brain back into gear. Unfortunately Mapleton though a great little town has a very poor selection of nonfiction books at its library and since I am prejudiced about reading from something solid in my hands I haven't made the effort to make use of what's online, perhaps that too will change since I've allowed my husband to finally take me into getting an IPad for bedtime reading (due to something volgadon said about how he managed to survive with mainly electronic sources.)

Clearly, at least imo, it is from this seed that "real" Mormon theology could emerge and from these seeds develop into the "stone" to roll forth and influence the entire earth. It was actually from my studies of Pragmatism that I found Mormonism - and found it put together all the notions I had accumulated from years of philosophical study into an actual church. You can imagine my shock! On the other hand "Mormon culture" can be frustrating at times, growing out of Protestant fundamentalism.

I've never found the "Mormon culture" to be all that in synch with LDS doctrine myself, something that has frustrated both me and my mom over the years to the point where she pretty much withdrew from the culture for many years to immerse herself in study because she felt it was important to not only to do the right thing, but for the right reason as well as avoiding doing the wrong thing for the right reason (which she saw many of the programs and activities as such).

But we are a new church, and it takes a few hundred years for any serious theology to develop anywhere- and usually it borrows from the prevailing philosophical views of its day. Early Christianity did, the Reformation did, and we will, like it or not. People think and want "answers" and it is up to the "artists" of the day to create the thought/reality and cobble together something reasonable out of the cultural milieu in which they find themselves. Prophets are not theologians, usually- one must be an intuitive mystic to be a prophet- but then it takes the logical guys to come in and tidy up the place and put everything into neat little rational stacks!

It will be interesting to see this happen (if I live long enough); the prejudice against such things seems to be much less than in my youth so I might see it happen, but in order to stay uniquely LDS revelation must always be front and center so whatever it turns out to be, it will have to be flexible and dynamic and openended in my opinion.

[elguanteloko]

Perhaps philosophy and revelation are like matter and anti-matter and cannot exist together.

I've always found the quote in my tagline intriguing, from Josephus.

Is ethics, philosophy of science, of mathematics, of mind, of art, etc, incompatible with revelation? This must be a joke. Again, "Philosophy" is an umbrella term for a bunch of topics and ways of approaching them. Revelation is "data" that is accepted in theology, NOT a conclusion a philosopher gets to. Philosophy does NOT deny revelation but conducts inquiry without taking the data of revelation although it could, in principle, arrive at some of what revelation says. For example, reason (philosophy) may get you to the conclusion that there must be a Prime Mover who is outside of space and time, a conclusion many religions already accept as revelation.