"The Philosophies Of Men" And Mormon Doctrine

[mfbukowski]

I have a real question- as most here know, I am "into philosophy". I also am an active "true believing Mormon".

It seems that there is a deep-seated suspicion of philosophy in Mormondom, exemplified by the phrase "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

Interestingly, I think it is, in Mormon literature, Satan who first uses the phrase. Maybe I am wrong- I am not sure.

But anyway, in the midst of this suspicion of philosophy, Mormons are also know for having some questions about what does and does not constitute "official doctrine".

We repeatedly are told that various statements by prophets or general authorities are not necessarily "doctrinal" and this generates quite a body of discussion in itself.

Even a discussion about what is or what is not doctrine involves "philosophy".

I maintain you cannot separate the two.

What do you think?

[Log]

I wonder what philosophy Adam had before he was given scripture. What do YOU say?

[thesometimesaint]

My criteria is pretty simple. If it is in the Scriptures it is doctrine.

[CV75]

I maintain you cannot separate the two.

I don’t think it need be a suspicion of philosophy per se, but I do think that any philosophy that dilutes, imitates, substitutes or usurps the philosophy of God (revealed religion) is in the long run not good for us. This is when and how philosophy gets disparaged—it depends on the attitude of the philosophy toward non-rational (spiritual) means of addressing the fundamental problems of humanity, and the effectiveness of the philosophy in leading one to revealed religion.

Similarly, individual attitudes about and approaches to “official doctrine”, including the understanding of what it is and how it is conveyed, can be just as harmful or helpful.

To me, revealed religion is fundamentally a spiritual (non-rational) process that enhances rational (philosophical) processes. When the doctrine becomes uninspired either in delivery, receipt, or application, then it is the same as uninspired philosophy. But when the doctrine is of God, and the philosophy is of man, then they are not the same. I think, like politics, God transcends philosophy.

It follows the same kind of discussion as comparing revealed religion with science, and context plays a big role in whether they are seem to dovetail or not.

[mfbukowski]

My criteria is pretty simple. If it is in the Scriptures it is doctrine.

I'm fine with that, but how do you know "what is in the scriptures" means? This entire board is pretty much devoted to debating that very point.

[mfbukowski]

I wonder what philosophy Adam had before he was given scripture. What do YOU say?

To me, that's like asking what time it was when God made time. In other words, there was no "before". When God speaks in words, we must interpret those words, and then we are "doing philosophy"

Analytic philosophy (sometimes analytical philosophy) is a generic term for a style of philosophy that came to dominate English-speaking countries in the 20th century. In the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Scandinavia, Australia, and New Zealand, the overwhelming majority of university philosophy departments identify themselves as "analytic" departments.^[1]

The term "analytic philosophy" can refer to:

• A broad philosophical tradition^[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on clarity and argument (often achieved via modern formal logic and analysis of language) and a respect for the natural sciences.^[4][5][6]
  

• The more specific set of developments of early 20th-century philosophy that were the historical antecedents of the broad sense: e.g., the work of Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, G. E. Moore, Gottlob Frege, and the logical positivists. In this narrower sense, analytic philosophy is identified with specific philosophical commitments (many of which are rejected by contemporary analytic philosophers), such as:
  

• The logical positivist principle that there are not any specifically philosophical truths and that the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. This may be contrasted with the traditional foundationalism, which considers philosophy as a special, elite science that investigates the fundamental reasons and principles of everything.^[7] As a result, many analytic philosophers have considered their inquiries as continuous with, or subordinate to, those of the natural sciences.^[8]
  

• The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of philosophical propositions.^[9] The logical form of a proposition is a way of representing it (often using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system) to display its similarity with all other propositions of the same type. However, analytic philosophers disagree widely about the correct logical form of ordinary language.^[10]
  

• The rejection of sweeping philosophical systems in favour of attention to detail,^[11] or ordinary language.^[12]
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

[Log]

Yes, ...quoting the Father of Lies. It seems to be Satan who implies that the two are separate.

Now, you're filtering the scripture. I'm not so sure it is quoting Satan, myself.

In any event, the character of Satan throughout the scripture is only portrayed as making false statements if those statements contradict God. Otherwise, his statements are true.

So then does revelation come word by word from God -dictated- or is it filtered and worded through a human mind?

It can happen both ways, as you probably know.

If it is filtered, I would argue it includes "philosophy". I think any linguistic utterance is subject to interpretation and context, which thereby makes multiple interpretations possible.

Yes, as I am fond (or something) of saying: there is no language so precise that a hair cannot be split when using it. Lawyers and philosophers thrive on exploiting the necessary ambiguities of natural language. Why, just today, I had a lawyer explain to me that interpersonal relations can be legitimately interpreted to mean non-interpersonal, non-relations!

Deciding what those interpretations are, to me, is "philosophy".

Hmm. I am not so sure.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[Log]

When God speaks in words, we must interpret those words, and then we are "doing philosophy"

http://en.wikipedia....ytic_philosophy

So, let's analyze the case of Adam. If your hypothesis works for him, then it undoubtedly works for all.

Is it your position that the word of God to Adam was necessarily filtered through the mind of Adam and he somehow muddied the words with some form of personal philosophy?

What form of philosophy would Adam have had in the Garden? How about outside of the garden, up until the angel came? And so forth.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I think the road many church members walk down with a fear of philosophy is dangerous. Most people when searching for religion and truth want reason and rationality in their decision. It is what separates us from fundamentalists. If philosophy helps me to reason and understand truth better why run from it ALa 13th article of faith.

[mfbukowski]

I don’t think it need be a suspicion of philosophy per se, but I do think that any philosophy that dilutes, imitates, substitutes or usurps the philosophy of God (revealed religion) is in the long run not good for us. This is when and how philosophy gets disparaged—it depends on the attitude of the philosophy toward non-rational (spiritual) means of addressing the fundamental problems of humanity, and the effectiveness of the philosophy in leading one to revealed religion.

You're one of the people I was hoping would chime in.

So if one had a "philosophy" which enhanced the understanding of spiritual experience as "rational"- would it count as a "philosophy of men mingled with scripture"? So is that "good philosophy" whereas the other is "bad philosophy"?

To me, revealed religion is fundamentally a spiritual (non-rational) process that enhances rational (philosophical) processes. When the doctrine becomes uninspired either in delivery, receipt, or application, then it is the same as uninspired philosophy. But when the doctrine is of God, and the philosophy is of man, then they are not the same.

OK but how do we separate those? We can't even decide what "doctrine" is much less "good philosophy"--?

Should we just throw out the distinction- or can it be defined?

To me, one of the most profound lines of "philosophy" which turns sectarian Christianity on its head is 2 Nephi 2:25

25 ^aAdam ^bfell that men might be; and men ^care, that they might have ^djoy.

I mean the implications of those 14 words are phenomenal- first, man is not a depraved being, a victim of original sin, there is a plan of salvation which includes a purpose for the human race, and our purpose is to have joy and eventually, arguably, reach exaltation.

I mean that is the whole gospel in 14 words which overthrows all creedal Christian theology.

Does that count as "philosophy"? And I am not quibbling over words here- the fact is that we LDS condemn "philosophy" so if THAT "counts" as "philosophy" we are condemning our own revelations.

THAT is the point I am trying to make- we are inconsistent in what is and is not "philosophy", except we all know that "philosophy is bad".

[mfbukowski]

I think the road many church members walk down with a fear of philosophy is dangerous. Most people when searching for religion and truth want reason and rationality in their decision. It is what separates us from fundamentalists. If philosophy helps me to reason and understand truth better why run from it ALa 13th article of faith.

Exactly!

[mfbukowski]

Now, you're filtering the scripture.

That is exactly the point. "Filtering the scripture" to me is synonymous with "understanding language". It is totally unavoidable. There is no such thing as an unambiguous statement in a natural language.

[mfbukowski]

If one takes the position that there existed a pure "Adamic" language which was free from ambiguities- that's fine.

The problem is of course that we don't speak that alleged language now, if anyone ever did. What Adam believed or didn't believe is irrelevant to the thread, I am talking about us- 21st century Mormons, with the practical problem of scriptural interpretation in dealing with a phrase taken to be pejorative- "The philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

[zerinus]

I have a real question- as most here know, I am "into philosophy". I also am an active "true believing Mormon".

It seems that there is a deep-seated suspicion of philosophy in Mormondom, exemplified by the phrase "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

Interestingly, I think it is, in Mormon literature, Satan who first uses the phrase. Maybe I am wrong- I am not sure.

But anyway, in the midst of this suspicion of philosophy, Mormons are also know for having some questions about what does and does not constitute "official doctrine".

We repeatedly are told that various statements by prophets or general authorities are not necessarily "doctrinal" and this generates quite a body of discussion in itself.

Even a discussion about what is or what is not doctrine involves "philosophy".

I maintain you cannot separate the two.

What do you think?

There is a difference between philosophy per se, and the "philosophies of men". The word philosophy by itself just means wisdom, or the love of wisdom, which is not in conflict with scripture. In the proverbs it is declared, ". . . get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding" (Proverbs 4:7). The problem arises when we get carried away by the "philosophies of men," especially when we allow it to trump the revealed doctrine of Jesus Christ. I think the mistake you are making is that you are confusing philosophy per se with the "philosophies of men".

[Cobalt-70]

I have a real question- as most here know, I am "into philosophy". I also am an active "true believing Mormon".

It seems that there is a deep-seated suspicion of philosophy in Mormondom, exemplified by the phrase "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

I think the reference to "philosphies of men mingled with scripture" refers very specifically to the conjunction of biblical ideas with Greek philosophical ideas during the apostasy. I don't think that it has anything to do with modern philosophical ideas, into which Smith himself dabbled, and from which modern Mormonism, and indeed modern western thought as a whole, cannot be separated.

[mfbukowski]

There is a difference between philosophy per se, and the "philosophies of men". The word philosophy by itself just means wisdom, or the love of wisdom, which is not in conflict with scripture. In the proverbs it is declared, ". . . get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding" (Proverbs 4:7). The problem arises when we get carried away by the "philosophies of men," especially when we allow it to trump the revealed doctrine of Jesus Christ. I think the mistake you are making is that you are confusing philosophy per se with the "philosophies of men".

Thanks for your participation- actually I would like to hear from those often thought to be more "conservative" here- or in other words those who would express the opinion you just did so that I can explore their (your) understanding better because it is precisely those who believe as you do that I do not want to characterize me as being a "bad guy" by being one who puts "the philosophies of men" above scripture. In other words, I would like to be able to have a dialogue with those who might see me that way.

I guess a direct question would be, in general how do you view those who see, for example, no conflict between science and the gospel because their interpretation of scripture differs from yours? Some questions commonly debated here are the global flood, evolution, death before the fall, the nature of doctrine itself- those are all topics which lend themselves to a nuanced interpretation of scripture which might be characterized as "philosophies of men" but which those who put them forth BELIEVE to be in perfect harmony with scripture.

How do we know when we have allowed philosophy to "trump" revealed doctrine? How do we know which is which? I know the classic answer is "by the spirit"- which I also believe is the correct answer.

But suppose your interpretation- by the spirit- differs from another faithful member's interpretation "by the spirit"? Do you automatically assume that the other's is wrong- or that perhaps that God is teaching them differently than the way you are being taught?

Is there a middle ground for that interpretation where someone else's might be "right" but with which you might disagree anyway? (I feel that way often)

[mfbukowski]

I think the reference to "philosphies of men mingled with scripture" refers very specifically to the conjunction of biblical ideas with Greek philosophical ideas during the apostasy. I don't think that it has anything to do with modern philosophical ideas, into which Smith himself dabbled, and from which modern Mormonism, and indeed modern western thought as a whole, cannot be separated.

Agreed- that is my point I guess. At the point in history when Joseph might have used that phrase- there was virtually nothing BUT Greek sectarian philosophy, at least when it came to theology.

Soon after Joseph lived, the philosophical picture changed drastically- in his favor! But we are still stuck with that Greek stuff and the attitude that "philosophy" is bad because that is what the sectarians use.

But it need not be, and in my opinion, our attitudes about this should change.

But I get flak all the time about this stuff!

[Log]

What Adam believed or didn't believe is irrelevant to the thread, I am talking about us- 21st century Mormons, with the practical problem of scriptural interpretation in dealing with a phrase taken to be pejorative- "The philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

Is not your position that interpreting the words of God necessarily implies mingling them with the philosophies of men, however broadly or narrowly "philosophies" are defined?

If so, then the case of Adam is relevant. We're not speaking of any Adamic language.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Even the view that we shouldn't engage philosophy in our theology is a philosophy." -- Blake Ostler

(Though I disagree with Ostler about the premodern cosmology.)

The tendency towards blanket dismissal of philosophy as a whole is frankly a pet peeve of mine. Christ didn't condemn a generalized "philosophy" ("The Philo/Love of Sophia/Wisdom") as such -- he argued against particular conclusions of the philosophies of men ... using His own counter-philosophy!

(He distinguished between the true teachings of Wisdom, who is justified of Her children, and the "strange woman", the Wisdom of the World.) Sure, I disagree with Aristotle on just about everything of consequence; yet I'm currently in the middle of Aristotle's Metaphysics by Joe Sachs and One and Many in Aristotle's Metaphysics by Edward C. Halper.

Note that it is very specific "philosophies of men" which we argue against using our powers of rationality. God calls us to come "reason" with Him in Isaiah; "spirituality" is not synonymous with "irrationality" and it rather worries me when we conflate the two. We are meant to study things out in our minds, not accept ideas uncritically. ("What reason ye in your hearts?" Christ asks, right before launching into his own reasoned philosophy. Concerning the faith in Christ, Paul, during his encounter with Felix, "reasoned of righteousness, [and] temperance." 1 Peter 3:15 teaches to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you."

Therefore, the "philosophies of men" which we specifically argue against using our own human-made philosophy and reason are the ideas that God is an omnipresent being without body, parts, or passions; that there is a physical hell of literal fire where sinners burn forever; and that money can get you anything. These conclusions are, from our perspective, confused.

That's it. It's not a monolithic philosophy that's the problem; it's the simple fact that we fallible humans have made mistakes in our reasoning and sometimes become stuck in conceptual ruts. All that's needed is a little corrective from time to time, which can be provided by a better philosophy.

The only reference to "philosophy" I can find in the scriptures is in Colossians 2, where Paul says that we are to acknowledge the mystery of the Father and the Anointed One, "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

He continues: "And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

As far as I can tell, he's arguing that the plurality of Gods are explicitly embodied beings, and against the conclusions of a particular philosophy which denies that Messengers from the other world above us (which is a mystery because it is hidden from our direct sight) can contact us. It's a cosmological argument against a view in which our pale blue dot of a world is the only sphere worth considering, despite the fact that there are worlds without number floating around up there.

God might not be physically present here in this world, but He still exists out there. He wants to reassure "them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen [God's] face in the flesh; that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding." Understanding more fully is the reason for their hope.

When Paul was persuading and reasoning with the folks in the synagogues and markets at Thessalonica and Berea and the Areopagus (the "Rock of Ares") in Athens, many of the honorable "women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few" believed. It's therefore not "Greek philosophy" as such which is incorrect, since these particular Greeks were philosophizing correctly; it is merely some of the conclusions which certain other Greeks came to.

As in 2 Peter 2, those who deny the Anointed One are "false teachers" because they are bringing in untruths among the people; they are like the "false witnesses" spoken of elsewhere who sought to put the Anointed One to death. These false teachings are not concerned with philosophy or abstract theology; the first is simply a denial of a historical personage's existence, the second is lying for political expediency.

It was when Paul argued with the Epicureans and the Stoics, who said he set forth "strange Gods" because he preached of the Anointed One and the Resurrection that he started to touch on "philosophy." The existence of the historical person and mission of the Anointed One and the Resurrection went against the Epicurean notion that the Gods were distant non-interventionists unconcerned with us mortal folk -- but note well that the problem is not said to have anything to do with the atomistic materialism of Epicureanism (which is actually quite close to an LDS understanding of scripture in important ways, with the physical Gods flying between the worlds). The problem, rather, is the idea that the immortals are unconcerned with humans. Christ the Anointed One came down to save us; He and the rest of the Divine Council love us. Of course, that goes against the Stoic notion that the universe itself was God.

In the midst of Mars' Hill, Paul said that the men of Athens were therefore "too superstitious" because they were worshipping an unknown God. He's not saying their God is an evil God, he's saying that they're ignorant of some things about Him, and he's there on a mission to fill in some missing pieces.

Then he teaches them that all the nations of the world are of one blood. We're all part of the same human family, so we should stop trying to separate ourselves into warring factions. Quoting Greek poets, Paul says that we are all God's "offspring." Now that's some good philosophy! The testimony of two nations is being allowed to run together to prove the truth and correct the false traditions of [some of] the fathers.

It comes down to an artificial semantic distinction, where we try to cut up the quest for knowledge into more-easily-digestible chunks, with "philosophy" assiduously segregated from "theology" which is assiduously segregated from "history" which is in a separate ghetto from "science", and on and on. Yes, distinctions within our classification schematics can be useful, but they can also hinder us when they impose artificial linguistic divisions where none need exist. It's all connected; philosophy is a part of theology is a part of history is a part of science is a part of philosophy. They're intertwined.

At any rate, "if the Gods are exalted humans, then humanism becomes theology." God's philosophy, presented in the gospel, the Good Story, is one which seeks to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. Adam fell that men might be; men are that they might have joy.

Edited May 7, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Log]

But, let's go further. I think this may be conceded to be relevant.

2 Nephi 28:31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

If I am not mistaken, these uninspired precepts are what are being labelled "the philosophies of men." From this vantage point, I would have to be of the opinion that our attitude towards the philosophies of men should not change.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

I guess a direct question would be, in general how do you view those who see, for example, no conflict between science and the gospel because their interpretation of scripture differs from yours?

They are entitled to their opinions, as I am to mine.

Some questions commonly debated here are the global flood, evolution, death before the fall, the nature of doctrine itself- those are all topics which lend themselves to a nuanced interpretation of scripture which might be characterized as "philosophies of men" but which those who put them forth BELIEVE to be in perfect harmony with scripture.

Again, they are entitled to their opinions, as I am to mine.

How do we know when we have allowed philosophy to "trump" revealed doctrine? How do we know which is which? I know the classic answer is "by the spirit"- which I also believe is the correct answer.

That is a question which each must answer for himself. I cannot answer that question for you, neither can you answer it for me. I may disagree with how you answer that question for yourself, and explain my reasons; but I do not deny you the right to hold whatever opinion you like about that, including an erroneous opinion if you wish.

But suppose your interpretation- by the spirit- differs from another faithful member's interpretation "by the spirit"? Do you automatically assume that the other's is wrong- or that perhaps that God is teaching them differently than the way you are being taught?

As I said, other people are entitled to their opinions, as I am to mine. It is like the parable of the ten virgins. Each is responsible for having oil in their own lamps. They cannot share that oil with others. It is when the bridegroom arrives that it becomes obvious who has been deceived and who has not been. I am happy with that arrangement. But if I disagree with someone else's interpretation, I usually have a reason for it, and express it.

Is there a middle ground for that interpretation where someone else's might be "right" but with which you might disagree anyway? (I feel that way often)

I never knowingly disagree with someone who is right, or at least try not to.

[zerinus]

Agreed- that is my point I guess. At the point in history when Joseph might have used that phrase- there was virtually nothing BUT Greek sectarian philosophy, at least when it came to theology.

Soon after Joseph lived, the philosophical picture changed drastically- in his favor! But we are still stuck with that Greek stuff and the attitude that "philosophy" is bad because that is what the sectarians use.

But it need not be, and in my opinion, our attitudes about this should change.

But I get flak all the time about this stuff!

I entirely disagree. The "philosophies of men" means the philosophies of all men. It does not mean the philosophies of Greek men, or Roman men, or Englishmen.

[Log]

Incidentally, I wonder how Brother Ostler would react to the statement "We shouldn't engage in uninspired philosophizing at all." That really is the crux of it.

That's the problem here, and why I believe MFB's topic of discussion is abortive once we properly clarify what we're speaking of - the philosophies of men are the uninspired precepts of men.

Why settle for less than the truth?

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

"Even the view that we shouldn't engage philosophy in our theology is a philosophy." -- Blake Ostler

Yep- great stuff. Agree with all he said.

So now is he a "bad guy"?

[mfbukowski]

They are entitled to their opinions, as I am to mine.

Again, they are entitled to their opinions, as I am to mine.

That is a question which each must answer for himself. I cannot answer that question for you, neither can you answer it for me. I may disagree with how you answer that question for yourself, and explain my reasons; but I do not deny you the right to hold whatever opinion you like about that, including an erroneous opinion if you wish.

As I said, other people are entitled to their opinions, as I am to mine. It is like the parable of the ten virgins. Each is responsible for having oil in their own lamps. They cannot share that oil with others. It is when the bridegroom arrives that it becomes obvious who has been deceived and who has not been. I am happy with that arrangement. But if I disagree with someone else's interpretation, I usually have a reason for it, and express it.

I never knowingly disagree with someone who is right, or at least try not to.

OK well then I don't have much to argue with you here- and I think we are mostly in agreement at least this far.