Ed Firmage, for many years the token Mormon at the U of U law school, is an interesting apostate. This weekend I read his deconversion story and was struck by an interesting twist on the familiar litinany of Mormon failures. Firmage seems to have been really upset by the doctrine of apostasy. What set him off was what he saw as its trivialization of the history of Christian thought. For Mormonism, he claimed, the whole sweep of Christian theology is only a prologue to the Restoration. As he insisted in a striking phrase, “Augustine isn’t just a prologue.”
Firmage, of course, is right. He is right that the history of Christian theology is filled with great insight and power and that Mormons frequently do a disservice to it and themselves by reducing it to nothing more than a shadowy prologue to the visions of Joseph Smith. Yet I think that Firmage’s reaction to this insight — namely that Mormonism as a religion (as opposed to a tribe) is best jettisoned in favor of Catholicism or Episcopalianism — is mistaken. The reason, I think, has to do with understanding the age of Mormonism.
There is a tendency for Utah Mormons, especially those of pioneer stock, to see Mormonism as something old, as something defined by a history and a tradition. Mormonism in this view becomes an exercise in memory and religion is transformed into a species of nostalgia. This creates the temptation to view Mormonism as something that has already happened, and to orient one’s view backwards toward history. This, in turn, tends to privilege particular intellectual tools — namely those of history and scholarly excavation — over other intellectual tools — such as philosophy and creative elaboration.
In thinking about Mormon intellectual life, however, I think it is important to always remember that Mormonism is young. We are not in our intellectual adulthood or even our intellectual adolescence. We are in our infancy. I do not mean by this that Mormonism or Mormon intellectuals are puerile or childish. What I mean is that in the history of human thought, 175 years is not a very long time. When it neared the close of its second century, Augustine and Aquinas were still far, far in the future of Christianity. One hundred and seventy five years after Mohammed made his trek from Mecca to Medina, the usul al-fiqh (the basis of Muslim jurisprudence) and the elaboration of Muslim philosophy and theology had yet to happen.
Generally speaking, the predicament of intellectual life in Mormonism revolves around issues of authority. On one side is the claim that living prophets and continuing revelation render distinctively Mormon intellectual projects outside of the realm of prophetic pronouncement superfluous at best and dangerous and faithless at worse. On the other side, are those — like Firmage — who lament the predicament of an intellectual caught in an authoritarian culture. Ultimately, however, I think that the issue of age is more decisive than the issue of authority.
Most of the intellectual work of Mormonism has yet to be done. What that means it that Mormon thought, by necessity, should privilege daring and creativity over simple scholarship. This does not mean that I object to scholarly cannons of quality or deny the need for rigorous criticism and discussion. However, it does mean that Mormon thought is not primarily a matter of scholarly excavation. Mormon thought does not come in the form of a pious study of Augustine, bur rather from someone with the audacity — and intellectual heft — to pick a fight with Augustine. Firmage is surely right that hitherto the dominant Mormon ways of discussing Christian theology have been woefully simplistic and bereft of serious understanding or appreciation. This does not mean, however, that intellectual rigor means that one must allow Mormonism to subside into the stream of Christian thought. Rather, Mormon thought requires that one articulate the implications of the Mormon revelations for the discussions that have animated intellectual life for the last two or three thousand years.
The absence that Firmage rightly perceived is not evidence of intellectual or spiritual aridity, but rather represents a challenge and an opportunity. We stand at the beginning of Mormon thought looking forward, rather than at the end of the trail looking back at a failed journey.
Frankly, I find the “History of Christianity” to be even less than a prologue to the Restoration. It is meaningless. I can spiritually be enlivened and even “Saved” with or without knowledge of what came before. In fact, in the First Vision and the vision of Angel Moroni, the main message was the same; what came after the Apostles died was darkness. Joseph Smith was told not to go after them. Mormonism isn’t “New” by its own Revelatory announcements. It might have been given new paradigams to define its theology, but it is a return to what was lost and forgotten.
Firmages problem, if recorded properly by you, was a lack of faith in the Restoration. He wanted Phylosophy more than he wanted God and his Prophets. So, let him have his love affair with the thoughts and ideas of man. I will stick with the revealed Word of God. Not that study of the history of Christianity is wrong. Just that it isn’t important in understanding the Restoration.
Just that it isn’t important to understanding the Restoration, besides seeing where it all went wrong.
I see an undercurrent in what you’re saying, Nate O., that I agree with. Let me know if you do to:
Because we are young, it’s more useful to have folks who bite off more than they can chew, take wild stabs that may not be fully supported, and generally venture out into the dark. Once that’s been done, later generations can start picking apart what they’ve done and seeing what holds up.
Adam, I see Hugh Nibley in your description: I think future generations may refute large swaths of his scholarship, but continue to laud him as a trailblazer.
Yes we’re just getting started, but can nothing be said for bursting out of the pen at full velocity? I mean, a thousand pages of new scripture right off the bat! And most of it of a quality that will out live time. Doesn’t that mean ANYthing to Firmage?
Adam: To a certain extent I agree with what you say. It seems to me that institutionally the Church has bitten off far more than it can chew, ie convert the world, redeem the dead, etc. The same is true intellectually. On the other hand, I think that a lot of what happens when Mormons bite off more than they can chew simply ends up being really, really, bad. There aren’t a lot of people who can do it and still end up making a contribution (Nibley seems like a good example).
More broadly, I think that Firmage made a mistake when he approached the problem of “What do Mormons think about Augustine?” by looking up sermons by general authorities. Obviously, I think that these can have something to say, and frequently something of great value. I think that a Mormon investigation of this sort of a question of necessity requires that one look at what Mormons in the past have said. However, I think that far more often than we admit to ourselves the answer is “Well, Mormons haven’t really thought about this question much at all.” This DOES NOT mean that Mormonism is an intellectual wasteland. What it means is that if you want serious Mormon thought you are often going to have to do it for yourself. This is a huge burden, but it is also a huge opprotunity.
I think that much of the appeal of Mormonism is that it allows us to in a sense relive the world of the scriptures. We don’t mearly read about prophets and covenant people in times past. We get to follow our own prophets and participate in our own new covenant. Certainly, the 19th century dramatically illustrated this with miracles, persecutions, exodus, and a new promised land. However, Mormonism is not simply a chance to live the scriptures. It is a chance to relive the history of human thought, if you will.
Firmage talks about reading Origen and lamanting the fact that Mormons don’t take him more seriously. Fair enough. However, it seems to me that Mormonism is, in some sense, in the place where Christianity was when Origen wrote. It offers not only the chance to read Origen, but also the chance to be Origen, to live through and participate in the foundation of a whole religion’s intellectual life. That is an opprotunity that comes around every couple of millenia and it seems to me that Firmage makes the fundamental mistake of misidentifying that opprotunity as a spiritual and intellectual dead end.
Nate, I wonder whether it makes any difference that Mormonism doesn’t generally think of itself as having a long future. The implications of our mission extend through eternity, of course, by means of proxy ordinances and sealings, but as an institution, a corpus of thought, an ethnic identity, a unique presence in the world—we’re always waiting for the Millennium right around the corner, when Christ will reign personally and the burden of identity will be taken from the shoulders of the insitutional church. In this sense, the church has no future (that is, we often don’t think of it as having a long future), only its (short) past.
I think we must be respectful for the intellectual and emotional searching of all those Christian thinkers. But all their thinking did not prevent doctrinal chaos, cruel extermination of dissident factions, centuries of superstition… Yes, Augustine was a great thinker. But how many have really read him, including his most bitter condemnations of those who believed that God was corporeal?
Most interesting is when he reaches the end of his life. In his Confessiones he finally discovers that his thoughts were only human thoughts and that correct knowledge can only come through revelation:
“Speak to me…” For fifty years, Augustine has been writing the most complex considerations about doctrines, only to come to the point where he realizes that the only valid answer can come from God himself. One would hope that God would indeed speak to such a man. But then Augustine launches himself in a complex reasoning that since God is incorporeal, how can he make a sound and speak? And Augustine is left in utter confusion.
Compare that to the revelations received by Joseph Smith.
Sorry, but when it comes to divine knowledge, Augustine was less than a prologue — by his own admission. And in view of all that, I think it is wrong to think that Mormonism still has to come of age.
Nate,
Good post. I think part of the reason why Mormon “intellectual thought” hasn’t historically progressed like it might have is because it didn’t need to. From an apologetic standpoint, it has been easy for Mormons to refute “anti-mormons” because the anti folks generally did not have their facts straight. Some of this might be changing.
I have recently started reading “The New Mormon Challenge” by Francis Beckwith. Having read several anti-mormon books and articles, this one is interesting. First, I wouldn’t say it is “anti-mormon.” It seems as though the authors (non-mormon christians) have taken an approach to honestly discuss several theological issues. Part of the reason why they claim to have published the book is to address the increase (in both quality and quantity) of Mormon “intellectual thought.”
I see that Ed is going to be at Sunstone. One session will be an interview of him, and in another he will participate in a panel on eastern religious philosophy and meditation.
Nate, do you have a link to the deconversion story you reference?
Rosalynde writes:
“we’re always waiting for the Millennium right around the corner, when Christ will reign personally and the burden of identity will be taken from the shoulders of the insitutional church”
I’m weak in this area — but didn’t many if not most of the Christian thinkers — early and Medieval — believe the same thing?
—–
Nate writes:
“However, Mormonism is not simply a chance to live the scriptures. It is a chance to relive the history of human thought, if you will.”
Perhaps. Or to be more positive — I sure hope so.
I wonder, however, if the new empires and technologies of ideas complicate this reliving in a way that previous nascent religious traditions didn’t have to deal with.
Kevin: I read the interview with Firmage in Ure, _Leaving the Fold_ published by Signature.
Jettboy:
“Meaningless” Christendom, as you put it, built a road in an evil wood so that Joseph Smith could walk safely into a sacred one.
James 1:5, the scripture that sent Joseph to his knees, was only available to him because centuries of heroic men and women had struggled forward through the wood with barely enough light to see by.
“Apostate” Christian thought and action led to the establishment of the United States, which, as you know, played a fairly meaningful role in the successful establishment of the one true Church.
“Apostate” Christian missionaries did all the heavy lifting in places like Africa and Asia and South America, learning the languages, building the outposts, teaching the basic concepts of the gospel (which did not change with Joseph Smith) so that we would not have to start from scratch. Have you ever tried to explain the Godhead to someone utterly unfamiliar with it? On my mission I thanked the Lord every day that gentile and heathen alike took the idea of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for granted, thanks in large part to “apostate” priests with bloody feet and tired faces.
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I am frankly astonished by your assertion that the house’s foundation is negligible once the walls have gone up.
Sorry about all the quotation marks. In order to maximize their annoyingness, just imagine me holding up two sets of fingers and aggressively making that quote-unquote motion with them every ten seconds.
Also imagine me saying “so-called” a lot.
Amen to all that.
Rosalynde: I think that you raise a very good point. However, I don’t think that Mormon millenialism is so powerful that we are precluded from thinking about the future. Still, I suspect that you are right that our eschatalogy may condemn the future to perpetual second-class citizenship vis-a-vis the past.
Jettboy (and others):
Of course we can be saved without exploring the writings of St. Augustine. Of course what a little-educated 14-year-old boy saw is more important than scores of tomes attempting to articulate the meaning of Christianity in the vocabulary of classical philosophy. Of course Ed Firmage has traded his birthright for a mess of sophisticated potage. But I sense some insecurity, a defensive fideism, in your closedness to insights available in “apostate” Christian theology. Augustine’s task — to explain the meaning of revealed truth in relation to a governing conceptual framework — may not be the one thing needful, but it would appear to be of obvious interest to anyone interested in refining and purifying his own understanding of revealed truth and in addressing the questions and concerns of the “honest in heart” among the “gentiles.” In fact, how can we know to what degree our own (even “religious”) ideas are bound up with prevailing intellectual frameworks before we have examined each in the light of the other and explored the connection between the two? This is just one reason to reamin open to “whatever is virtuous, lovely, of good report….”
William: “I’m weak in this area – but didn’t many if not most of the Christian thinkers – early and Medieval – believe the same thing?”
Well, I only know the English sixteenth and seventeenth centures—but then and there, at least, millennarianism was most pronounced among the newest and most marginal of the sects (of course, all sects were relatively new and marginal at that point). Those same sects, incidentally, were generally those that historicized apostasy most aggressively.
What harm can be done in studying the great minds of the past? What gains can be made in understanding the thoughts of those who so diligently kept His name alive during the period of darkness. Where would we be today if these men had not had the influence on our ancestors to bring us to this point in time. Let us celebrate them as Celestial beings, shining a light in a dark place.
Sufficeth it. What now, ye learned ones,
School-taught, self-sent, man-missioned ministers,
Creators of a vain divinity!
Daring the thunders of the decalogue,
Disputing Moses, Christ, and prophets all,
Gird up your lions and answer—What of God?
“God?—Mystery incomprehensible;
All things made He from nothing”—Hold, enough!
Night and gross darkness—darken it no more.
Yet give to man his meed. Hath he not kept,
Albeit in empty urn, the Name of Names,
And toiled and suffered sore transmitting it
From sire to son through shaded centuries?
Messiah’s coming did he not proclaim?
And, trodden yet beneath oppression’s heel,
Hoards he not still the precious prophecy?
The Jew, the Christian, each hath played his part,
Each as a star fn hath heralded a morn.
And what of him, the fierce inconoclast,
Agnostic, doubting or denying all
Ofttimes in hate and horrid ribaldry?
Maintains he not life’s equilibrium,
A tempering shadow to the torrid beam,
A brake upon the wheel of bigotry,
A jet to cool fanaticism’s flame,
Unquelled, devouring, devastating all?
An angel, past control, a demon were.
Bold unbelief, reform’s rough pioneer,
Unwittingly a warrior for the Cross,
A weapon for the right he ridicules.
(Orson F. Whitney, Elias: An Epic of the Ages [New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1904], 35.)
That’s enough, Greenwood. Your so-called “amening” is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to bow down purblindly to the “philosophies” “of” “men” (so-called).
Gosh, just the other day I read a quote by Joseph Smith to the effect that it is ignorance to dismiss the great Christian systems as superfluous (or worse) in light of the restoration. Does anybody have it, know of it? It was a nice, quiet, succinct little thing, a gem.
“I am frankly astonished by your assertion that the house’s foundation is negligible once the walls have gone up.”
Not foundation, Kinsgley. Scaffold.
Arguable.
Nate et al.,
I believe that Firmage’s take on the Restoration has very little to do with our appreciation (or lack thereof) of Augustine. I have read many of Augustine’s work (and I don’t know anyone ever who read all of them) in Latin and studied them carefully — does he really expect that the Saints as a rule have any view at all of Austustine? I like Augustine — but who really cares beyond the insight he can bring? He makes me think and adds dimensionality to my spirituality — though I disagree with him on just about everything especially in his later writings (and since he disagrees with what he wrote earlier he disagees too). I had Firmage in Law School. Token Mormon — yes! There are no active LDS at the UofU Law School which can be explained only by an anti-LDS bias in my view and experience. It is a bastion of religious discrimination Title VII liability waiting to be explored.
Firmage left the Church because he lost faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (I was a student at the UofU Law School at the time he underwent that crisis of faith along with his son) — and in my experience his true religion was always HHH democratic allegiance. It is hard to be a liberal in principle and also tolerant of the unwashed masses of Republican LDS who just can’t stand the thought of belonging to a party that sanctions gay marriage and abortion. In fact, the polls show quite conclusively that the country is split between families who seek to maintain traditional values and singles and unchurched who are seeking sexual liberation. The real divide is not Augustine, it is a liberal who doesn’t believe in Book of Mormon any longer and the conservative politics of Utah. As for me and my house, I’d put the Book of Mormon up against Augustine any day.
Nathan:
Whether or not you agree with the term “Christian civilization,” it must be admitted that Christianity did an enormous amount to create the atmosphere which allowed the Church to grow and thrive. It is so much more than scaffolding; it is nothing so rickety. The U.S. Constitution, for example, could certainly be legitimately viewed as foundational to the existence of the Church and its thriving missionary program, and every single soul I baptized on my mission came to the discussions with at least a fairly entrenched, intelligent understanding of the doctrines of Godhead, salvation, atonement, repentence, etc., if not a burning testimony of their reality. I did not have to convince them about Christ; only Joseph Smith. I did not have to convince them about the story in the Gospels; only the Book of Mormon’s version of it. I merely built upon an impressive foundation already in place. Apostate Christianity did a pretty good job of laying the stones that I, in my young muddlement, then added to. B.H. Roberts saw the Church as one important actor in wildly talented cast; a humble and beautiful idea, in my opinion.
I should have said, and oftimes with a burning testimony of their reality.
Ah, the “Mormon thought” meme. It’s been around a long time, as people getting educated want to emulate the “thought” process of other groups. They want to have a Great Mormon Novel, a Mormon theology, a Mormon philosophy. They want to dig up history and look at it with warts and all.
If you find Augustine interesting, by all means study him, but remember what Joseph Smith said about the Apocrypha.
Also remember what the scriptures and leaders have taught about looking beyond the mark. I think that is Firmage’s problem. I think that there will be time enough to answer all the deep questions, but I think the first priority is to live so as to know the voice of the Holy Ghost and let him lead you to truth. I found this site looking for the statement of Joseph Smith about how people can’t just leave the church and be neutral toward it.
I’ve had friends and relatives who’ve left the church and to the extent they once had testimonies, the pattern holds. One of them told me that it just occurred to him one day how many people there were who have never heard of Jesus Christ, let alone Joseph Smith, and it just seemed impossible that this tiny group of Mormons could be right and everybody else wrong. From then on, he quit wearing his garments and quit going to church. He said he wouldn’t oppose his family’s continuing to be faithful, but eventually he did and his temple marriage broke up.
I had already confronted that realization in my early teens and had received a testimony, but I have always worried about how someone who has grown up in the church, surrounded by other Mormons, can be brought to that point where they feel the need to know for themselves.
I’m not as good a Mormon as I could wish, and therefore I keep trying to focus on the first principles and ordinances, and getting prayers and scripture study right. One thing I know is that when I’ve been visited by the spirit, it was when I was about doing my duty.
I’m reading the History of the Church, and yesterday I read a couple of letters sent out by the Quorum of the Twelve to the members in America and Europe. What struck me about it was the bleak picture they painted of hardship and persecution these people had ahead of them in gathering to Zion. The letter was sent to exhort members to gather and send money to help build the temple in Nauvoo and the Nauvoo House. What it seemed to promise them was difficulty, hard work and the enmity of the world. Still thousands came. If I can only find that kind of faith, I’ll then have time to think and write about Mormon Thought, but until then I need to keep focused on achieving the Mighty Change of Heart.
Good thoughts, AST. However, regarding your “I found this site looking for the statement of Joseph Smith about how people can’t just leave the church and be neutral toward it,” let me just say that I find Times & Seasons an ideal spot for building and bearing testimony, increasing understanding of the Gospel, and getting to know and love the Saints, “warts and all.” We want novels, we want philosophy, we want history because the Lord has placed a love of these beautiful things in our hearts. Brigham Young, in fact, once begged the Church to “cease to be children and become philosophers, understanding our own existence.” Knee-jerk suspicious of thinking and interest in thinking is understandable given certain famous abuses, but please give us the benefit of the doubt, and welcome to the conversation.
Knee-jerk suspicion, sorry.
AST” Und?
For what it’s worth, the “deconversion story” of Edwin Firmage, Jr., is available online here. I don’t know how much overlap there is between the experience of father and son.
Kingsley,
Jacob chapter five points to the idea that a foundation of sorts was indeed already in place–that regardless of wild fruit, the roots were still good.
From Fimage’s account:
“I have often thought that what happened to me in Berkeley was fundamentally a conversion or, if you like, an anti-conversion. The process had all of the inscrutable suddenness that characterized some of the conversions I had witnessed as a missionary. Like a conversion to faith, the effects of my change of mind propagated with amazing speed. Almost overnight my whole outlook on life was different.”
Sheesh! I’ve been through that and I’m not even a scholar! Firmage hasn’t yet recognized that he went through an early “mid-life” crisis.
http://mthollywood.blogspot.com/ had some great posts on eastern philosophy.
Firmage hasn’t yet recognized that he went through an early “mid-life” crisis. though it did pay off for him. Interesting how he ends up bearing his anti-testimony on the website for Signature.
Excellent post, Nate.
I think that primarily at issue isn’t specifically Augustine, but the general lack of the liberal education in the church. Until we read the thinkers from which we came, we cannot understand well where we are. Many who comment here have that liberal education (not me, not yet), but the vast majority of church membership has gotten away from Brigham Young’s instructions regarding education. In his writings regarding Brigham’s teachings on education, Nibley writes that in the recent years:
we have “been only too glad to settle for the outward show, the easy and flattering forms, trappings, and ceremonies of education. Worse still, they have chosen business-oriented, career-minded, degree-seeking programs in preference to the strenous, critical, liberal, mind-stretching exercises that BY recommended…[And] as a result, whenever we move out of our tiny, busy orbits of administration and display, we find ourselves in a terrifying intellectual vacuum. Terrifying, of course, only because we might be found out. But that is just the trouble: having defaulted drastically in terms of Pres. Young’s instructions, we now stand as a brainless giant, a pushover for any smart kid or cultist or fadist or crank who even pretends to have read a few books. That puts them beyond our depth and so we (I [Nibley] include myself) stand helplessly and foolishly by…”
“It is perfectly natural for the young who discover the world of scholarship for the first time to strike in their sophomoric zeal an intellectual prose, rail in high terms against the church that has kept them in darkness all these years, and catalogue the defects and miscalculations of the prophets in the light of their own scholarly elevation. That is perfectly natural, and if we had heeded Brigham Young, the urge to study and criticize would be running in fruitful channels.”
I think that Times and Seasons is many times a fruitful channel.
If we seek and obtain early a liberal education, the commentaries of the world regarding us will not hit so hard and we will be able to critically analyze their approach to us, recognize the weakness in our own situation and in the arguments being made against the church. And having built our testimonies and intellect side-by-side, be able to debate, discuss, and disagree with the best and brightest and come away better and brighter with our testimonies not only intact, but augmented.
(Sorry about the long post).
here are no active LDS at the UofU Law School which can be explained only by an anti-LDS bias in my view and experience. It is a bastion of religious discrimination Title VII liability waiting to be explored
I still remember UoU law students coming down to use the BYU library. I arranged for them to have study carrels, treated them kindly and was, of course, surprised when they didn’t come back one day, but thirteen copies of the same volume — the one they were using from the code, went with them.
It has impacted my view of the UoU ever since.
Jennifer Lane at this past March’s SMPT conference used Origen to help bring out the beauty of the Book of Mormon’s teaching on atonement. We are starting to be able to approach traditional Christianity proactively.
We have the basics necessary for salvation, but salvation is not about being given one talent and then stashing it in a cupboard: “from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have” (2 Ne. 28: 30). Two-thirds of the Book of Mormon we have yet to receive! Just having the words of prophets on our shelves, or passing our eyes over the pages, is not enough to justify complacence. The trick is to discern the difference between earnestly searching the scriptures and prayerfully seeking greater insight, on the one hand, and looking beyond the mark on the other.
James, The New Mormon Challenge deserves a bit more caution than you express. You might take a look at
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=408
Nate,
As always, I love your optimism. I would add two points in favor of studying extra-Mormon christianity.
1. Mormonism, as all things, was not created ex nihilo. Just like everything else, it is made up of the already-said. The conversation about Mormonism does not just occur every six months, but is going on around us constantly. We just have to open our ears and listen.
2. I would say the same thing about Christianity as being the already-said as well, which means that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to the narrowly defined dogmatic field of the “history of Christianity.” Rather, we should look to other religions, and other fields such as sociology, philosophy, etc.
Finally, do we have to study these things in order to be saved? It seems to me that this is the wrong question. Rather, we should ask if studying these things will help save others. I hope so. I have long thought that a lot less people like Frimage would apostatize if they had some fellowship in the church.
Nate:
The U of U law school could use another token Mormon who is actually Mormon.
Back from vacation and I missed an other great thread. A few brief comments.
James (#9) I do think The New Mormon Challenge is quite good. I obviously disagree with a lot of it. But I think it sets up future discussions. One problem for Evangelicals is that until very recently there has been relatively little serious intellectual *writing*. It’s hard to start a discussion when most of the debate is informal and hard to reference. I just got my first issue of Element last week (a LDS philosophy journal) so hopefully that will be changing. I also hope that the quality of FARMS publication increases a bit. It’s certainly better than many give it credit for. Indeed I think the quality of FARMS writing is why Evangelicals are realizing they need more sophisticated engagements with LDS thought. However I think FARMS often rehashes the same stuff and it could be written in a more “dispassionate” way. As I said, I think there is a lot positive going on the last year or two with regards to faithful LDS intellectual studies.
Nate (#17) The whole issue of Mormon millennialism is interesting precisely because of how it orients our goals. Someone ought write a post on it. I’d suggest you, but I might snag it for Millennial Star. Given the name of the blog it might be appropriate. (grin)
Mike (#36) I’m not sure the church lacks a liberal education. Indeed BYU *focuses* on a liberal education. (At the college I transferred from one never took all the GE required at BYU) I think Americans in general are a pragmatic lot more focused on getting the job done than intellectual analysis for intellectual analysis sake. i.e. we admire engineers more than philosophers. I actually think that one of our strengths, especially when I look to France or similar nations. It seems to me that sophisticated narrative of our religion adds nothing to what our religion does and can often distract from what our religion does. Indeed it is precisely there that I think Augustine *did* lead Christianity astray. Brigham Young, relative to Orson Pratt, had lots of interesting (and in my opinion true) critiques of intellectualism and philosophy relative to what one might call pragmatism.
Ben (#39), while The New Mormon Challenge certainly is, from an LDS perspective, erroneous, I’m not sure it is as problematic as you suggest. I think it perhaps best seen as a first step. I certainly don’t agree with Midgley that it is anti-Mormon.
The Times and Seasons is a happy discovery for me, though it bodes ill for my work . . .
Nate’s profound optimism about the intellectual heights still to be scaled by our infant religion is a moving one; it reminds me of a saying of Elder Maxwell’s that my father often quotes to the following effect (forgive the paraphrase): “Now all the easy things are done, and the times of high adventure lie ahead.”
I don’t want at all to dampen that enthusiasm, but I do wonder whether Nate is looking for the coming Mormon greatness in the wrong places. First, of course, is the question of whether it will be intellectual greatness of any sort. But put that aside. If I’m not misunderstanding, the point of Nate’s post is that, contra Firmage, what Mormons need now (or need most now) is to strike out in new, Mormon directions–not to go back and appreciate more carefully that which has preceded us (though that undoubtedly has its place too, at least as a way of understanding and appreciating by contrast what we have).
In this context, Mormon views on the history of the world seem very relevant. Not, mind you, because there’s no time left for a big theoretical project (there’s always the millenium), but because in certain ways our role in this dispensation is profoundly retrospective: The dispensation of the fullness of times will, to be sure, have its new revelations of things never before revealed to man–see D&C 121. But the scriptures refer to it most often as a restoration and completion of the truths and orders of all previous dispensations. In it, all things, both in heaven and earth, are to be gathered in one in Christ. The Saints/Israel will be gathered, and according to 2 Nephi 29, there will be a parallel gathering of all of God’s word. Parallel to the gathering of the righteous from the wicked, then, we have a gathering of all truths revealed in the past but since lost or corrupted. (It is interesting to think about what these various gatherings have to do with each other.)
This all leads me to propose an alternative to the view that the great intellectual task before us is to create a new, Mormon edifice to stand alongside those of the great religious traditions of history. Perhaps our office is instead to gather together the truths in each of these traditions into a single whole–to seek diligently, armed with the framework of the restored gospel and the gifts of the Spirit, to gather words of wisdom out of the best books of the earth. If so, then our appreciating–and selectively assimilating–Origen and Augustine and many others may be central not only to our understanding of the Restoration/Restitution of All Things, but also to its completion. It is also, perhaps, a way for the hearts of the children to turn to their fathers.
Of course, while I find this picture of gathering truth compelling, I must admit that in practice it can veer dangerously close to mingling scripture and the philosophies of men.
Apologies for the long post.
“It is also, perhaps, a way for the hearts of the children to turn to their fathers.”
That is a great point.
Good post, Nate, good comments.
Michael,
What you have concluded about us needing other’s perspectives rings true to me and I believe is supported by 2 Nephi chapter 29.
Going back to the starting point of the thread–one of my reasons for joining (what was) the RLDS church was to be able to situate my discipleship (as a believer that God had worked through Joseph Smith) within the history of the church which had existed before April 6, 1830. Don’t know Ed Firmage, haven’t read his story: do, I suspect, understand some of his feelings.
Michael: I think that we have somewhat different ideas about novelty. I don’t expect or hope that Mormon thinking will generate new insights ex nhilio. What I envision is very much like the gathering that you are talking about. However, I think that such a gathering will transform both Mormon thought and that which we are gathering. It is not simply a matter of taking what we already know and using it as a criteria for selectively grabbing from others things that we agree with to create an even larger pile of essentially homogenous intellectual stuff. Rather, I see the process more in terms of thinking through the implications of our “infant religion” in conversation with what has gone before. To be sure, there is a sifting and winnowing process of gathering things out of the best books. I just envision the product of such a process of being much, much more than a Mormon Anthology of What Has Gone Before.
Writing off centuries of human religious thought and scholarship as irrelevant to our spiritual condition because it occurred prior to Joseph’s visions is a conceit and religious chauvinism not inconsistent with a London subway bomber.
Clark: It seems that BYU’s focus is undergraduate education more so than liberal education. However, a classical, liberal education is available at BYU, you just have to know where to find it (I didn’t). I think that the pragmatic, applied, practical knowledge is very important. However, it is much more valuable when built upon the foundation of a classical education and many of us didn’t get this at home or in public schools.
Michael: Great points. I hope that this is our future as scholars and builders of knowledge.
When those doubting sessions come to any of us, some are able to work through the issues, while others can’t handle it, and therefore ” fly off the handle.” I have no certain answers but I have observed for myself some fundamental principle’s that may contribute to our success or failure, in keeping the fire of the gospel in our breast. The lack of any or all of these and other principles in my life are precursor’s to a trembling testimony.
1. As ye sew so shall ye reap
2. Prove me now herewith
3. As a man thinketh so is he
4. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God
5. Where a mans treasure is
6. He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her
7. As ye judge….judge righteous judgement
8. Love God and love His Children
9. Pray always
10. Return good for evil
11. Bear one anothers burdens.
12 Ye a are a city on a hill
13 Do not bear false witness
14 Honor thy father and mother
15 Do not steal
16 Do not covet
17 Thou shall have no other gods before Me.
18 Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
19 Pay an honest tithe
20 Do not kill….or anything like unto it
And the list goes on…….
Now I think there is ample room to amplify oneself in any, or all of these area”s. At the end of the Saviors sermon on the mount we are told that the people were astonished at his doctrine for he taught as one having authority. A key ingredient to testimony is recognizing Christ’s authority to tell us what to do and how to live. I am astonished at His doctrine today. Time has not dimminished the luster of His witness or of His willingness to do the will of The Father. In this life there is a war that goes on in the heart of every soul. I call this terrible struggle the War of Wills. No conflict in mortality is of greater consequence to us than the battle that is waged on the Gettysburg of will. Our sure defense are those kinds of feelings and sentiments as are above enummerated. When we become a law unto ourselves, or feel inclined to censure others through the mottled mote of our own vision, the beam of God’s justice will likley whack us up the side of our head. I have had such bruising concusions. Christ won the war of wills, we are still fighting it.
Harold B Curtis
Nate–
You’re right, of course–for clarity’s sake I painted a somewhat starker alternative to the “Gathering” method than any I thought you would actually propound.
As to the dangers of looking at history only to pick out ideas that match our own: Well said. Too often our contact with historical figures is limited to comparing their ideas with our own current understandings of the gospel to see how they (not we) measure up: Honorable mention to Plato for being on the right track on premortal life! Minus two points, though, for mentioning reincarnation at the end of the Republic.
A real gathering requires that we actually gather some truths we weren’t already aware of from the great thoughts scattered through history–even if, after the fact, we come to see that those truths were there in the gospel from the beginning.
But although you and I probably agree more than I let on at first, I do think the “gathering” view is controversial. It’s opposed to the view, also represented in this thread, that compared with the Restoration, what went before was mere darkness and confusion no longer worth our time. With the fulness of the truth restored, there’s no longer any point in hunting through the mingled truth and error that existed before Joseph Smith. We can, of course, respect those who did so well with the truth they had, just as we respect the pioneers who made their handcart journeys even though we now travel by plane. (Call this view the “Pure Sources” view.)
There’s nontrivial authority for that view kicking around; we all know the warnings about learning from those that mingle scripture and the philosophies of men.
Similarly, consider what the Lord told Joseph about the Apocrypha: not “it’s got truth and error mixed, so go gather out all the true parts,” but “it’s got truth and error mixed, so don’t bother with the translation.” (But on the other hand, it will be valuable to those who read with the Spirit.) Also in this vein is the Lord’s statement to the elders that they are sent forth to teach, not to be taught.
Someone taking the Pure Sources view can still share Nate’s and my enthusiasm for the great truths yet to be discovered, but would probably think they will come not as Mormons recover the lost lessons buried in Origen but rather as we live righteously enough for our prophets to receive new revelation, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, etc. The contrasting view to my notion of gathering is not that we would create our Mormon edifice of truth ex nihilo, it’s that we won’t create it at all–we’ll receive it from God when he’s good and ready.
I don’t think this view should be lightly dismissed. In particular, I wouldn’t want to dispute the Pure Sources view’s emphasis on the need for revelation. I guess the question is just whether Mormons studying Origen alongside the Book of Mormon is likely to speed or hinder that revelation on a personal and institutional level.
It’s possible, of course, that I am wrong to treat the Pure Sources method and the Gathering method as if we must choose between them. Maybe these different approaches are really more in the nature of differing spiritual gifts: to some is given one and to others another, that all may be profited thereby.
Another overlong post. Oh dear.
I just finished reading Alexander Morrison’s book, Turning from the Truth–A New Look at the Great Apostasy. After reviewing Talmage’s characterization of apostasy and resulting “darkness,” Morrison writes: “Advances in modern scholarship over the last century have shown that 19th-century views on the so-called Dark Ages, though embraced by most historians of the period, require revision. The view that changes in the early church resulted in the descent of a blanket of stygian darkness over the entire earth, such that humankind had no contact with God or the Spirit for nearly two millennia, simply don’t stand up to the scrutiny of modern scholarship.”
By his own admission, Morrison’s book is not a scholarly academic treatise; he wrote it for “the intelligent, non-specialist Latter-day Saint reader.” Still, the book represents an acknowledgement of new understanding of early Christian history.
The value I see in studying the history of Christian thought is essentially the same as studying any history: those who don’t study history are condemned to repeat it. Although as Nate pointed out, the Church is young, our history is also compressed. Instant access to virtually all of the world’s information is accelerating the drawn-out processes that early Christianity went through.
For example, a big issue in Christianity was agreeing on a canon. It took centures, but once that was accomplished (although different factions ended up with different versions), debate shifted to what the canon meant. In LDS history, the canon was essentially fixed within 46 years of the founding of the Church (with minor additions in 1981). Since then, we’ve been basically trying to figure out what the canon means. Like Christianity, we have embarked on textual interpretation instead of continuing revelation. (I’m not talking about revelation regarding who to call as church officials, where to build buildings, etc., but about scriptural revelation and prophecy.)
Another aspect of the history of Christianity was dealing with adapting the faith to different cultures. This process took centuries; indeed, it is ongoing two thousand years on. The LDS experience is a compressed version of this same process, as we are attempting to expand throughout the world within a couple of hundred years.
There are many other parallels: the development of theology and defining what is orthodox; the interplay between religion and science, religion and philosophy, and religion and history; progression from spirituality to materiality; shift in focus from spiritual gifts to church authority; reliance on physical demonstrations of power and influence (in the form of ever more abundant Cathedrals/Temples, elaborate headquarters, prominent members); and many others.
While I don’t think Firmage’s point is that we could have avoided these trends by learning from the history of Christianity, learning from history should be the objective of LDS scholarship. From my perspective, the failure to study Christian history has led to us as a people repeating it.
An Augustine scholar who read this thread found more than a little irony in the number of times the great philosopher’s name is dropped (usually as an example of the ultimate apostate bogyman) as opposed to him actually being quoted. He mentioned Augustine’s view that pride, and especially pride of the intellect, is the ultimate sin, and obedience the ultimate virtue, e.g., “I can truthfully say that this is the only virtue of every rational creature who lives his life under God’s rule, and that the fundamental and greatest vice is the overweening pride by which ones wishes to have independence to his own ruin. …”* Augustine, in other words, when it comes to the fundamentals of everyday Christian living, is very near to the prophets, and it would be of enormous benefit to every Latter-day Saint to read and reread him. Who can think of his agonzied cry in the garden — “Why not now, Lord?” — and not be moved? Who can honestly say that this man was a corrupter of the truth? Which of us, born into an apostle-less world with only the Bible as guide, would nevertheless make it our life’s mission to understand and teach the gospel with every last ounce of our mental and physical strength? Latter-day Saints who scoff at their saintly predecessors embarrass both the Church and themselves.
*(Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book Eight).
I suspect, Kingsley, when all is said and done more is said than done. I don’t mean that in a negative way. Merely that I think most LDS do see the intellectual damage Augustine did as rather serious, despite his other virtues. Certainly it is hard to read the Confessions and not be moved. But simultaneously Augustine did great damage to the church (IMO).
Maybe so, but if the apostasy was inevitable anyway, indeed if it was already basically a done deal by time Augustine came onto the scene, can he not be viewed as a man doing the best he could with what he had? This is not a case, after all, of an intellectual trying to recreate the Church in his own image, is it? I mean he is not (e.g.) a Toscano fighting the apostles. I like Nibley’s approach, where he simply says look at poor Augustine trying to keep Christianity kicking sans the gifts of the Spirit etc. Anyhow, I was referring more to the sort of sneer that exists in the Church at everything and everybody between the death of John and the birth of Joseph Smith. You have to go a long ways in Augustine to receive anything like a jolt of unease at his doctrine. Mostly you are thanking God for his powers to restate what you already knew in shattering language, and to teach you what you didn’t know shatteringly. That’s been my experience anyhow. Thanks for your thoughts. I didn’t mean to be histrionic up there.
Excuse this late comment. I am just now starting into this fascinating thread. In #26 Kingsley states, “Whether or not you agree with the term “Christian civilization,” it must be admitted that Christianity did an enormous amount to create the atmosphere which allowed the Church to grow and thrive.”
I have come to appreciate that truth in another aspect recently. A few years ago my family handed me a stack of genealogy that was researched by the previous generation and then asked me to write a family history around it. The first task I set myself was to go back and document where every fact (name, date, location, etc.) came from. Previous generations didn’t think that was important. Now that I have finished that task, I am amazed at how the older genealogy depends almost entirely on church parish records. If it wasn’t for those parish records, we would have a much scaled down genealogy and temple program today. Yet, I don’t remember ever hearing that indebtedness expressed by anyone.
I certainly enjoy the discussion and can appreciate those who defend past endeavors and thoughts and trials, as well as those who nuance the impact of these things. In these comments we must be so brief that it is difficult to even nuance.
Just a few thoughts:
Lorin, yes, we owe much to those priests and pastors who kept parish records, but don’t forget that in continental Europe we owe the tradition of complete and precise record keeping to the anti-ecclesiastical French revolutionaries who imposed in on the rest of Europe. Anyone doing European ancestry knows that slovenliness and incompleteness usually enter the picture once you start searching before 1792.
Kingsley, I admire your defense of and respect for Augustine. There is no doubt his writings are often deeply touching and that he is a key figure. But intrinsically, he contributed to the further demolition of what was still standing as correct doctrines from the primitive Church. Just think of what he did to attach the concept of original sin to babies and the horrid emotional consequences this had on generations of people who lost babies in infancy without they being baptized on time. Moreover, Augustine contributed a lot to the hatred against those who had different opinions and he helped lay the foundation of persecution and inquisition. Just read the intro to his “De trinitate” against those who believed that God had a body:
etc.
It’s that kind of language and attitude that helped instigate centuries of persecutions and millions of casualties. It is well known that Augustine himself was in favor of the civil government stepping in to force schismatics to conform to his “orthodoxy”. The Inquisition used his writings to justify its tortures. So I think we must accept duality in the way we look at this no doubt great historic figure.
Good Morning-
I am not a member of the Church, though I have read the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants most of LeGrand Richards’ A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. I have been reading posts on this site for several months, since I was referred to it by Elisabeth’s husband. I hope that I am not intruding by posting this comment after months of lurking.
The issue raised by, or at least reported on by, Nate Oman is in many ways reminiscent of the difficulty that the early Church Fathers (my Church) had when trying to deal with the great philosophers of classical antiquity. As pagans, the writers of antiquity were thought to have nothing to contribute to Christian thought. While not labeling Plato as a mere “prologue”, it was not until the start of the Italian Renaissance that the Church began to speak comfortably about the classical thinkers. Raphael could not have painted his great fresco of the School of Athens a century before he did. (If any reader is into medieval history, I can hear him object that Dante started it all two centuries earlier when he chose Virgil as his guide in the Paradiso, and I would have to agree.) Nonetheless, I think that few today would question the contribution of the Greeks to western thought.
The thought that it took earlier Christians 1200 to 1400 years to begin to deal with the philosophers of the past seems to serve as a good transition to the linked topic–the relative age of the Mormon Church.
I cannot help but think that a greater appreciation of early Christian writers might cast light on the the teachings of the Church (LDS). Further, it would certainly add a new dimension to the healthy debate resulting from Blake Ostler’s writings.
Bill, as always, I love hearing/reading your insights. I’m _shocked_ to read that you’ve been lurking on T&S instead of reaching for your billable hour targets. Sadly, you will find many on this blog with the same affliction!