This is a second piece on Bushman's Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2008). [See Part 1.] Every faith and denomination has an approach for balancing faith and reason. In Chapter Two of the book, Bushman briefly outlines the LDS approach.
The context, of course, is how a faith or denomination defends its claim to have possession of religious truth or correct doctrine. If reason alone suffices, it's not a religious approach. Faith or revelation alone might seem like the religious ideal, but faith or revelation always, at the very least, needs reason to make the system of doctrines hang together with a minimum of contradiction and to interpret the written texts. So what is the Mormon approach?
Revelation. Bushman sees revelation as the primary Mormon doctrine.
No single doctrine distinguishes Mormonism more sharply than the belief in direct revelation. It underlies everything from the governing authority of the church to every Mormon's daily life. ... In their church duties ... Mormons are perpetually counseled to listen to the Holy Spirit.
The term "revelation" is rather off-putting to some Christians, but it is used in much the same way the term "inspiration" is used in other denominations. For example, in a later paragraph, Bushman uses the phrase "by inspiration sought through prayer" to describe what Mormons generally call "personal revelation."
Reason. So what role does reason play and how does it influence LDS doctrine and practice?
Mormons do celebrate a kind of rationality, but always in subordination to inspiration. Mormon intellectuals have rarely engaged the philosophical theology of traditional Christian thinkers. ... Mormons are more likely to believe that philosophical influence corrupted Christianity rather than providing a sound basis for belief. Until recently, few Mormon thinkers have investigated the philosophical foundations of Mormonism.
I think that will change over the next couple of decades, as dialogue between LDS scholars and their counterparts in other denominations increases. The rise of academic Mormon Studies programs will also give Mormon theological thinking an institutional home that it has heretofore lacked.
Theology and philosophy are not, of course, the only game in town when it comes to reason. Bushman notes that "Mormons are more attracted to the empirical traditions of science." That can be observed in the never-ending LDS apologetic enterprise as well as the strong presence of scientific disciplines at BYU (contrasted with a small philosophy department and no theology department).
Whatever the details, revelation and reason work as complementary rather than competing modes of thinking for most LDS. Bushman closes with this surprising observation:
Survey data show that Latter-day Saints with PhD's are more likely to be fully practicing than high school graduates. The combination of evidence and Mormonism's culture of inspiration holds the allegiance of all kind of people.
Related posts:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
tom,
The correct usage is "their" not "there".
I myself am amazed at those who post comments that reveal their lack of understanding of basic English grammar. Capitalization, punctuation and sentence composure would be nice.
Thanks.
Tom,
I understand the difficulty you have with Mormon teaching in terms of having to correct or clarify the words of early leaders of the Church. I too had that problem but less so now that I, as a life long Mormon, understand better the process through which truth was revealed to the early leaders. There are two points you should consider. The first thing that you should recognize is that the LDS church is a record keeping church. It is only because of that fact that many of the criticisms can even be launched in the first instance. If you could trace the teachings say of a particular minister of a given Baptist church and his or her predecessors, you would no doubt find many inconsistencies. No only would you find inconsistencies, but you would find that many of the early doctrines have either been abrogated or abandoned. There was, for example a time when many people though that it was fine to participate in the activities of the Klu Klux Klan. I don't think you'd now find many Baptist adherents taking that view even though as a Christian denomination, the Baptists purport to have always followed the Bible.
The second thing I think that you should consider is the manner in which light and knowledge was imparted to the early prophets. I have come to understand through reading Bushman and others, that revelations that were given early on in the church, were not verbatim edicts that had been spell-checked, cross checked or anything of the type. Rather, I understand that for the most part, the early prophets of the 1800's learned line upon line, precept upon precept. This is a pattern that was evidenced even in the time of Christ when the gospel was not shared with anyone but the Jews at the outset. When the apostles became more acquainted with the true doctrines and “put the pieces together” so to speak, they were better able to understand the gospel and to, accordingly, more clearly and understandably share the gospel. Paul’s writings are replete with advice and counsel to the early congregations who obviously were in a state of learning and progress. The early members of the church had to deal with their own inborn heresies and misapprehension as did the early prophets and apostles of this dispensation. Both the ancient and the early prophets did not “get” everything at once. Rather, even for Joseph Smith, he had to learn – and many times learn from his own mistakes. For me, that he accomplished all that he did despite his weaknesses and mistakes, is testimony enough that he was an inspired prophet who brought truth and light into the world.
That is "Not"and "Ku Klux Klan."
I love reason, and I love revelation. But revelation is the anchor. As Peter answered Christ's question, "But whom say YE that I am?" -- "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!". Christ acknowledge that that "fact" had been revealed to Peter by God. When God reveals truth to His children, those become the facts upon which we anchor our reason.
The core to the compatibility of reason and revelation are three principles:
1. The universe is definite and real
2. The laws of nature do not change
3. God himself does things for a *reason*.
Rational theology is impossible if any of these three propositions do not obtain.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.