S
UN$T0NE
Mormon theology is somewhat different from the norm. In its concreteness and in
the raw it appears to be meaningful, without the fancy linguistic garb that usually adorns
theological discourse. But the problem is, it also appears to be false. At least it appears to
be false unless one is able to make, as the faithful Mormon makes, a complete about-face from
the traditional ways of thinking about God and the soul and the human condition.
SOME DISTINGUISHING
CHARACTERISTICS
OF MORMON PHILOSOPHY
B.y Sterling, M. McMurrin
I WILL COMMENT ON THREE BASIC ELEMENTS IN
reality. Every philosophy must come to grips with the apparent
Mormon philosophy that have both theoretical and practical fact of matter--whether it is real or is appearance only, is one
implications for the Mormon religion and that distinguish it of
in two or more kinds of reality, or is the only thing that is
fundamental ways from the traditional forms of Judaeo-Chris-genuinely real. The dominant tradition of occidental philotian philosophical and theological thought: Mormonism’s masophic thought has been idealistic, holding that the ultimate
terialism, its nonabsolutism, and its natura!istic humanism. real is idea or the product of idea, mental rather than physical,
In the beginnings of the LD5 church, its philosophy and or, in theological contexts, spirit--that matter is either unreal
theology were quite fluid and in some respects transitory, aor at best is an extremely low level of reality. Moreover, that
condition entirely normal for a movement in its infancy. In the
matter is the source of evil and suffering. The anti-materialistic
early years, the theology was not basically different from typi-temperament and clharacter of traditional Christian theology
cal Protestantism, but there were radical changes before the are not derived from biblical sources, but rather especially
death of Joseph Smith. In the first decades of this century, the from the overwhehning influence of Platonic metaphysics,
philosophy and theology achieved a considerable measure ofwhich dominated major segments of philosophic thought in
stability and consistency. But things changed after the death inthe Hellenistic and Roman world in which Christianity was
1933 of the Church’s leading theologians, Brigham H. Robertsborn. The biblical religion does not denigrate material reality.
and James E. Talmage; now for several decades there has been On the contrary, the Bible holds that the material world is good
considerable confusion in Mormon thought, with the resultbecause God created it.
that it is often difficult if not impossible to determine just what The radical materialism of Mormonism has its ground in the
are and what are not the officially accepted doctrines.
Doctrine and Covenants and has been basic in the thought of
virtually all influential LDS writers to the present. Section 131
MORMON MATERIALISM
includes the familiar statement, "There is no such thing as
immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or
DESPITE the confusion, however, nothing is more char- pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (D&C 131:7,
acteristic of Mormonism than its materialistic conception of 9). In numerous writings officially accepted by the Church,
even God is described as a material being, having "body, parts,
and passions." Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, and James E. TalmSTERLING M. McMURRIN is the E. E. Ericksen Distinguished
age, major influences on Mormon thought, all agree with this
Professor Emeritus at the University of Utah and has authored The
materialistic principle, insisting that there is no such thing as
Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology and The immaterial matter. Of course, no respectable philosopher ever
Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion. This paper held that there is immaterial matter; this is obviously a logical
was read before the Friends of the Library at the Marriott Library,
contradiction. The immaterialist position has been grounded
University of Utah, on 13 October 1991.
in the theory of the reality of immaterial substance. The MotMARCH 1993
ILLUSTRATIONS BY PATRICK CAMPBELL
PAGE 35
S
UNSTONE
theto
triumph of Christianity. Stoicism, which was opposed to
mon writers have fallen victim to the common tendency
treat the term "substance" as a synonym for "matter." Thereatomism and held that reality is a continuous material plenum,
may be no immaterial substance, but that is a factual matter towas in its dominant form favorable to religion and had a strong
be argued on the basis of factual evidence, not logic. It is not a impact on Christianity. Even though much Roman Stoicism, as
logical contradiction to say that God or the spirit or mind is anin the writings of the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus in
the second century, was essentially pantheistic, the Stoic metaimmaterial substance.
It is of interest that the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher physics was a thoroughgoing materialism--b oth the physical
Anaxagoras, who was the chief originator of the occidentalworld and mind or spirit were regarded by the Stoics as
material.
conception of mind or intelligence,
At least one major early Christian
nous, employed the same terminology
used by Joseph Smith in describing
theologian was a confirmed materialspirit. "Mind," he wrote, about 460
ist-Tertullian (ca. 155-after 220 C.E.),
the earliest of the Church Fathers to
B.C.E., "is the finest of all things, and the
purest, and has complete understanding
write in Latin and to give a strong Westera-Roman emphasis to Christian docof everything, and has the greatest
power. All things which have life, both
trine. Like the Mormons, Tertullian held
the greater and the less, are ruled by
that the spirit or soul is material and that
mind" (Hermann Diels, Fragmente der
even God is corporeal. "For who will
Vorsokratiker, translated by Kathleen
deny," wrote Tertullian, "that God is a
Freeman, 59:12). There is some quesbody, although God is a spirit? For Spirit
tion of whether Anaxagoras held that
has a body substance of its own kind, in
nous, which became soul or spirit in
its own form" (Adversus Praxean, ch. 7).
theology, was material or rather his use
But materialism failed to capture Christiof the terms "fine" and :’pure" as descripanity, which came increasingly under the
tions of nous as matter was due to inaddominion of Platonism, especially
equacies of the Greek language in his
through the influence of the Jewish phitime. But the extant fragment which exlosopher Philo Judaeus and the foremost
presses his views seems to mean that
Roman philosopher, the Neoplatonist
nous is simply a different kind of matter.
Plotinus. The Spanish Jewish philosoThe foremost historian of Greek philospher Solomon Ibn Gabirol in the elevophy, Theodor Gomperz, in his monuenth century held a position somewhat
mental The Greek Thinkers, wrote that
like that of Mormonism--that there are
"nine-tenths of the ancient philosophers
two kinds of matter, spiritual and physi¯ . . regarded the individual ’soul’ as a
cal. This had been suggested even by St.
substance not immaterial, but of an exAugustine (354-430), the greatest of the
tremely refined and mobile materiality"
theologians, but it was opposed by
(Vol. 1,216).
Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth cenClear and unambiguous materialism
tury. There were some under Aristotelian
entered the stream of occidental philosinfluence, however, who accepted the
ophy with the atomism of Leucippus
idea of spiritual matter especially beand Democritus in the fifth century
cause Aristotle held that matter is the
B.C.E. For the Greek atomists, the world,
principle of individuation, and angels,
both physical and mental, is a mechanical congeries of materialthough spiritual, are individuals rather than species. They
atoms, all of the same quality and differing only quantitatively,
must therefore be in some sense material. This, of course, was
in their sizes, shapes, positions, and motions. If this mechani-the point of the medieval argument about how many angels
cal atomism had prevailed, what we call modem science mightcan stand on the point of a needle--or was it the head of a pin?
have developed many centuries earlier than it did, but atom-If angels, as the Church taught, are immaterial beings, they are
ism and mechanism were completely overshadowed by thein Aristotelian terms species rather than individuals and therescience of Aristotle until the time of Galileo and by the idealis-fore occupy no space whatsoever. At a 1978 meeting of the
tic metaphysics of Plato, which is even today a powerful forceTrustees of The Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Camin philosophical and theological thought.
bridge University, Lord Ashby, in commenting on the scientific
Nevertheless, atomism survived as the scientific base of thetradition of Cambridge University in contrast to the philosophethical school of Epicureanism, which reached its zenith in theical tradition of Oxford, called attention to the angel-pin probDe Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 96-ca. 55 lem. The two universities, he said, had been requested by a
B.C.E.) in the first century B.C.E., and exerted a considerable leading scholarly academy to put an end to the controversy
influence as an anti-religious school in the Roman world until
and come up with the correct answer. Oxford replied with a
PAGE 36
MARCH 1993
S
UNST0NE
detailed commentary on Aristotle’s principle of individuation, There was a young man who said, "God
the scriptural description of angels as spirits, the tradition of Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
the Church, etc. Cambridge, on the other hand, replied with a
Continues to be
short telegram: "Please advise concerning the area of the head
of the pin in question and the center of gravity and girth of the When there’s no one about in the Quad."
But Pratt did not fully understand Berkeley, and contrary to
several angels."
In a sense materialism went underground in occidentalhis criticism that Berkeley’s mentalistic approach to the reality
thought and let the metaphysics of idea, mind, and spiritof the physical world produced atheism, Berkeley regarded it
as an argument for the existence of God.
dominate both philosophy and religion.
After all, he gave up philosophy and beBut it surfaced again in the modern
came a bishop. Someone came back with
world, especially in the seventeenth century when there was considerable revolt
a reply that nicely puts Pratt in his place
and states Berkeley’s theistic position:
against both Platonism and Aristotelian"Dear Sir:
ism. Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), a
Your astonishment’s odd:
priest and mathematician, revived atomism in the Epicurean form, which
I am always about in the Quad,
described a break in the mechanical beAnd that’s why the tree
havior of the atomic world allowing for
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
freedom of the will. From then on, the
atom gained ground steadily as a basis
Yours faithfully,
for the essentially material conception of
God."
the world, a conception that dominated
Orson Pratt went all out for the atomone branch of science after another until
istic approach to matter. Like the atoms
there was a virtual mechanical synthesis
of Democritus, Epicurus, and Gassendi,
in science as the nineteenth century
and indeed of the generality of physicists
neared its close--a synthesis grounded
of his time who were under the influence
in the classical physics of Isaac Newton.
of Newton, Pratt’s atoms were extended,
The established religions resisted the
space-filling, solid pieces of matter. His
materialistic description of reality, as did
atoms, of course, composed both mind
the dominant idealistic philosophical
or spirit and body. But Pratt was really a
schools, especially Hegelianism and its
panpsychist. His were no ordinary
offspring, but Mormonism, which was
atoms. They were little material minds,
born and nurtured in the century of
in some ways not unlike the monads of
materialism, played matter for all it was
the great German philosopher and mathworth--and then some. Of the many
ematician Gottfried Leibniz (1646philosophical defenders of materialism
1716). Pratt was a Newtonian up to a
in the past century, the British philopoint, so his atoms obeyed the law of
sopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903),
gravity; they were very smart; they
whose materialistic metaphysics was a
obeyed Newton’s laws because they were
cosmic expansion on the principle of
obedient and did what they were supevolution, has been the main non-M orposed to do. Pratt never disclosed how
mon influence on LDS writers.
his atoms knew so much about NewtonThe chief defender and advocate of materialism in the earlyJan physics or why, being free to do as they pleased, they
years of the Church was Orson Pratt, whose essay Absurdities always pleased to do what God had in mind for them. Leibnizg
o_[ Immaterialism (1849), the most impressive analytical piece monads, on the other hand, were subject to a pre-established
in Mormon literature, had a permanent impact on Mormon harmonious behavior when they were created by God, but
thought. Pratt objected to the idealistic argument of the philos-Pratt’s atoms were uncreated and had free will. The generality
opher George Berkeley (1685-1753) on the ground that it was of Mormons were not partial to the idea that sticks and stones,
productive of atheism. In technical metaphysics, materialismas well as their own bodies, are made up of little living minds,
had received a telling blow in the seventeenth century fromand that part of Pratt’s materialism, his panpsychism, failed to
Berkeley~ brilliant and influential essay on the Principles q[get official recognition. As a matter of fact, it was this kind of
Human Knowledge, which argued that esse est percippi, to be is
speculation that got him into trouble with his chief nemesis,
to be perceived. There is no ground, Berkeley insisted, for Brigham Young.
regarding a thing to be real apart from its being perceived by a The materialism that was so strong in the nineteenth cenmind--which gave rise to a famous limerick by Ronald Knoxtury suffered a mortal blow early in our own, with the relativity
which Orson Pratt would have endorsed:
theory overthrowing the absolute space and absolute time of
MARCH 1993
PAGE 37
S
UNSTONE
Newtonian physics and quantum theory destroying classicaluncertainty in quantum mechanics.
mechanics in the treatment of both light and matter, raising Mormonism has refused to accept either of these objections
serious questions about causation, and mercilessly complicat-to materialism. Its reply to Platonism is that matter is real in
ing the structure and behavior of the atom. The poor old atom every positive sense, and to both the Platonism and Gnosticism
of solid stuff no longer exists. It was supposed to be impregna- in Christianity, that the material world is good. It is good
ble-the very word atom means the unsplittable, the indivis- because God said that it was good--not the bad God of
ible-but as everyone knows, in our own time it has been split Gnosticism, but the good God of Judaism and Christianity. Its
and split until now there are electrons, photons, neutrons, and reply to the specter of mechanical determinism, like that of
more, and heaven only knows how
Epicurus, is that even within the framemany other "ons" will show up in the
work of a world of physical law, human
future. Matter, which was supposed by
beings have genuine freedom of will, or
the old materialists to be absolutely inwhat Mormons, in the old-fashioned terminology, commonly call free agency.
destructible, is shown to be convertible
to energy, and now from energy to matThe Mormon theologians have never
ter.
given a good explanation of how this can
To say the least, over the past few
be true. But in Mormon philosophy the
decades, matter and old-fashioned mauncreated intelligence, which is the esterialism have been having a rather
sential being of humankind, is presumrough time, much to the delight of most
ably by its very nature free.
theologians and all philosophical idealThe LDS writers have done little or
nothing to clarify the meaning of the idea
ists. As Bertrand Russell has written,
"Modem physics is further from comthat spirit is refined matter, to bring it
mon sense than the physics of the nineinto the context of the contemporary
treatment of matter in physics and chemteenth century. It has dispensed with
istry, or to seriously wrestle with the difmatter, substituting series of events; it
ficult problem of the relation of mind to
has abandoned continuity in microbody. It seems to me that the simplistic
scopic phenomena; and it has substituted statistical averages for strict deteridea of spirit, or mind, or nous being
refined, pure matter--whether in Joministic causality affecting each individseph Smith or Anaxagoras--is ambiguual occurrence" (Human Knowledge: Its
ous in the context of the early nineScope and Limits, 322). The British asteenth-century conception of matter and
tronomer and philosopher Sir James
unintelligible if not meaningless in the
Jeans, a modern Pythagorean, held that
context of today’s scientific description of
God is a "pure mathematician" and the
matter. John A. Widtsoe, a scientist and
universe is his "pure thought" (The Mysan apostle, seemed to have some interest
terious Universe, 165, 168). So much for
in this problem when he employed the
the old-style matter.
concept of ether in his speculations on
The opposition of religion to materithe Holy Spirit; but he didn’t get very far
alism, which has a long and complicated
with this, in part because he advanced
history, has been due, I think, especially
his ideas in the early decades of this
to two things: that matter is the source
century at the very time that physics was
of evil and suffering, and that a materialistic conception of the world entails a mechanical determin-in the process of discarding the explanation of light by referism that leaves no room for the freedom of the will, which isence to a luminiferous ether.
the basis of moral responsibility. The first idea entered Christi- More than once I discussed the problem of so-called refined
matter with Henry Eyring, a devout Mormon and the Church’s
anity especially from Platonism, which held that matter in itself
is non-being, the lowest level of reality, and from the Gnosti-foremost scientist, and one fully cognizant of the most sophiscism that plagued Judaism and Christianity in the first twoticated theories on the nature of matter--a field in which he
centuries of the Common Era and had infected Christianitymade important contributions. But I was never able to get very
far with Eyring. He knew all about quantum mechanics, and
especially through its intrusions into the writings of Paul and
the Gospel of John. The second, mechanical determinism, ishe also knew that the gospel is true. That was about it. In The
found in Democritean atomism and in ancient Stoicism andFaith of a Scientist, Eyring says, "The scriptural description of
spirit as a more refined kind of matter takes on a new perspecwas very strong in much nineteenth-century scientific and
philosophic thought. It is still around despite the efforts oftive in the light of this larger concept of the interchangeability
many scientists and philosophers to dispel it through theof matter and energy. Matter, in the broader sense, can still be
indeterministic interpretations of the Heisenberg principle ofspoken of as indestructible [a position held by Joseph Smith
PAGE 38
MARCH 1993
S
UNSTONE
and the LDS theologians and also by Anaxagoras and most world of particulars is in space and time, the objects in space
Greek philosophers] providing we realize that energy is justand the events in time. But the higher, ultimate realities, the
another form of matter" (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967, 78). universals, are spaceless and timeless; they are not anywhere
A new perspective indeed. It is one thing to think of a more and they are not anywhen. They are without motion, without
refined matter in the days when it was thought that theoreti-change or process of any kind; unlike the particulars, they do
cally a piece of matter might be ground up more or less not come into being and do not go out of existence; indeed,
indefinitely. But what is refined matter when ordinary grossthey do not exist, they subsist. They are abstractions that are
matter is a congeries of electrical charges?
apprehended not by the senses but by the rational mind. They
inhabit an intelligible world as physical
objects and events inhabit a sensory
MORMONISM’S NONABSOLUTISTIC
world.
CONCEPTION OF GOD
Now, this doctrine of universals as
ultimate realities as opposed to particuBUT enough of this. I’ll turn to the
lars, which exist by participation in the
nonabsolutistic conception of God.
universals, is the essential feature of
Here Mormonism is even more heretical
Hellenic Platonism and the later
than in its materialism--if you’re a
Neoplatonism and was fated to have a
good Protestant or Catholic. And here is
most profound influence on the whole
the most important and, in my opinion,
character of occidental thought. An obthe best thing in Mormon philosophy or
ject such as this paper is a particular. It
theology.
exists somewhere in space and someWhatever is absolute is uncondiwhen in time; it comes into existence,
tioned and unrelated. At least that is the
moves from place to place, goes through
case for whatever is absolutely absolute.
various processes, and ceases to exist.
There can be, of course, only one absoBut its smoothness, its whiteness, and
lutely absolute absolute-- The Absolute.
whatever else can be said of it, are uniThe Absolute must be the totality of reversals. The adjectival descriptions of the
ality, as in the case of pantheism, where
paper are abstract nouns or substantives
God is everything and everything is
which designate realities that are indeGod. The classical Judmo-Christianity
pendent of particular pieces of paper,
was theistic, of course, and followed the
realities by virtue of which the particular
biblical pattern of an ontological distincexists. At least this is the argument of
tion between God, the creator, and the
Platonism. Just acts and just judges are
world, his creation. In that theology,
particulars, but justice is a universal;
therefore, God was not a genuine absobeautiful sunsets are particulars, but
lute, as he was related to the created
beauty is a universal; true propositions
world. It was a relation imposed by himare particulars, but truth is a universal.
self. But from the beginning, the ChrisWhether universals have genuine retian theologians’ passion for absolutism
ality independently of particulars, as the
pushed it to the limit, and there it is
Platonists have argued, is probably the
today in the more orthodox forms of the
most important problem in metaphysics,
established religion, as the traditional
and this position, which is known techomni’s testify--omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence,nically as realism, has had the most profound philosophic
and all the rest.
influence on theology, religion, and morals. The opposite of
In its formative years, Christianity had what might be calledPlatonic realism is nominalism, the position that only particua political or power absolutism in its background, the powerlars are real and that universals are simply names or words
of both the biblical creator and law-giving God and the Romanemployed to refer to similarities among particulars. Nominalemperors. But the main source of its absolutism was its inher- ism is strong today, with today’s commitment to sensory expeitance of Greek Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics.
rience as the chief source of reliable knowledge, but over many
Plato was influenced by the Pythagorean philosopher centuries realism dominated philosophy, science, and religion
Parmenides, the arch-absolutist who held that reality is oneand was the philosophic basis of orthodoxy in Christian theoland that all sensations of individual objects and events areogy. Even today it is a powerful influence in our thinking, as
illusory. Platog description of reality was a kind of two-levelwhen we insist that truth is eternal or an act is right or wrong
affair--the world known by the senses of particulars whichregardless of the related circumstances. Here the Platonic abcome and go and are in process, and a higher reality of solutism is still with us.
universals, the Platonic forms or ideas. The sensory, material Now, Platonism had a powerful impact on the Jewish phiMARCH 1993
PAGE 39
S
UNSTONE
losopher Philo of Alexandria, who was roughly a contempo- ment against it in both Catholicism and Protestantism, as
rary of Jesus. Philo (ca. 13 B.C.E.-ca. 45 C.E.), much of whose evidenced particularly by the so-called process theology and
work is still extant, was born and reared in two cultures, as philosophy that are identified especially with the metaphysics
most of us have been, the Greek philosophic-scientific cultureof Alfred North Whitehead and the theology of Charles
and the Jewish-biblical culture. He attempted to combine and Hartshorne.
reconcile the two, Plato and Moses, in his philosophy, and he It is important to recognize what is meant by the creeds of
thereby set the pattern for the early development of Christianthe churches when they express the idea, as in the Thirty-Nine
theology by the Alexandrian theologians who, after Paul, wereArticles of Faith of the Church of England, that God is a being
major creators of that theology.
"without body, parts, or passions." These
In keeping with Plato’s doctrine on
are ideas with predominantly Greek anthe nature of universals, Philo held that
cestry. The "without body" is fairly simthe creator God of the Bible is a being in
ple. Body suggests materiality, and matneither space nor time, but is absolute
ter in Platonism is the lowest form of
and free of all external conditions and
reality, non-being, and, to make matters
relations. God is not in space and-time,
worse, it is the source of evil and sufferbecause he created them. "The great
ing. This, of course, has some support
Cause of all things," wrote Philo, "does
from especially the Gnostic elements in
not exist in time, nor at all in place, but
the New Testament. The "parts" business
he is superior to both time and place, for
is a little less obvious. In Plato’s Phaedo,
having made all created things in subwhere Socrates is discoursing to his disjection to himself, he is surrounded by
ciples prior to drinking the hemlock, he
makes a case for the immortality of the
nothing but he is superior to everysoul on the ground that it is a simple
thing." Moreover, God "is uncreated,
entity rather than a compound. If it were
and always acting, not suffering," an
a compound, theoretically it could deidea that indicates espedially the influcompose. If it had parts, it could come
ence of Aristotelian metaphysics on
apart. But being simple, it is indestructiPhilo.
ble and therefore immortal. That God is
Now, to make a very long and comwithout passions, despite the passions of
plicated story short and altogether too
anger and mercy evident in the biblical
simple, by the fifth century, with Chrisaccounts, draws especially on the powertianity finally the official Roman religion
ful influence of Aristotelian metaphysics
and St. Augustine, the greatest of the
on Christian thought, mediated through
theologians, hard at work sorting out
the same channels as Platonism. God,
the ideas that would determine the
says Aristotle, is pure act and is in no way
course of the theology even to our time,
passive. He is always the subject, never
the living personal creator and law-givthe predicate, always in the active voice,
ing God of the Hebraic tradition was
never the passive. God influences all else
defined by impersonal descriptions
but can be influenced by nothing. He is
which came predominantly from Greek
impassive, without passions. This idea
sources, especially Plato. For Augustine
has never had much appeal for the typiand most Christian theology since his
cal worshiper, who likes to influence
time, God is a personal, living, thinking,
and willing being, but he is eternal or timeless and not inGod through prayer. But it has always been popular with the
space. He is related to nothing and subject to nothing. He theologians, who obviously don’t go in for praying. Aristotle’s
created the world from nothing and is free of all influence byGod, who or which was the chief cause of this impasse, is pure
his creation. The mind of God is eternally stocked with thethought, the prime mover; but he thinks only himself, as other
objects of thought would be impure. He does not know that
Platonic value universals, and the universals determine his
the world, which he moves by attraction, even exists. It’s
will.
The biblical God, who was intimately involved in the tem-obvious that he isn’t really a he, and certainly not a she. In his
poral processes of human history, became a timeless being whoScience and the Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead wrote
has no past and no future, who embraces in his being the past, that "Aristotle’s metaphysics did not lead him very far towards
present, and future of his temporal creation and who enters the production of a god available for religious purposes" (24-9).
into it only once, descending vertically into the horizontal Everyone knows that God is eternal, but that is usually
movement of history by becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ.taken to mean that he had no beginning and will have no end.
The idea that God is an eternal, timeless being still dominatesThat, however, is not the point of the technical theology. He
the official Christian creeds, but today there is a strong move- has no beginning and no end because he is not at all a temporal
PAGE 40
MARCH 1993
S
UNSTONE
being. Most informed non-Mormon Christians know that God divine. Mormon theology lends itself all too easily to trivializais not anywhere in particular. But because he is not anywheretion.
in particular he can be everywhere in general. That’s the beauty But the importance of the belief that God is in time, the
of the Platonic universals. Yet those same Christians, believingmost distinguishing characteristic of Mormon theology, is difthat God is eternal, do not come to grips with the idea that he ficult to overstate. The entire question of the meaningfulness
is not anywhen in particular, but rather that he is everywhenof human history and the life of the individual person, his
in general. This is a more difficult, and far more important,hopes, aspirations, failures, and successes, is at stake. If for
idea.
God every event in the totality of the world occurs simultaI rather think that most churched
neously, as St. Thomas Aquinas held, or
people, if asked "Where is God?" would
if God has everything in the total creation
say that he is everywhere in general, but
immediately present before his eyes, as
nowhere in particular. But if asked
John Calvin held and as some contempo"When is God?"--a strange but technirary Mormon writers seem to believe, so
cally correct way of asking--would say
that our future is God’s present, what can
that he simply is eternal, not meaning,
we say of human effort and human freehowever, that he is not in time. But if
dom? It isn’t the familiar question of how
this is the case, they would be at odds
can we have free choice if God knows
with the technical theology, both Cathowhat we are going to choose. St. Auguslic and Protestant. Of course in Protestine answered that very simply: God
tantism, especially, there has been a
knows that we are going to choose it
large movement even among church
freely. Rather it is the far more important
leaders and theologians away from the
question of what is free will if what we
major founders, Luther and Calvin, in
are going to do tomorrow is for God
matters of doctrine. And there is some
already being done by us today. Is there
indication of important dissension in
no real past and no real future? Not just
these matters in Catholic theology.
for us as creatures but for God as well.
The idea that God is a temporal being
This is the chief problem faced by
subject to time and space is the basic
theistic philosophy: how an absolute
heresy of Mormonism. God is someGod who is timeless and spaceless can be
where in space and is in the context of
related to a world that is in space and
the passing of time. He has a genuine
time. The death-of-God theology that
past, present, and future. His present is
made some impression a few years ago
our present, his future our future. In
arose from this predicament--that the
view of this spatialization and temGod of the theologians has no meaning
poralization of God, taken together with
for the life of humanity. Absolutistic thethe extreme anthropomorphic character
ology encounters an insoluble difficulty
of Mormon theology, there was always
in the problem of why there is evil and
the problem of how the deity got around
suffering in a world over which the omthe universe, a problem worked over by
nipotent and omnibenevolent God has
several Mon33on theologians by distintotal control. The absolutism of the tradiguishing between the Holy Ghostkthe
tional theism is supported, of course, by
traditional third member of the Godthe orthodox doctrine of the fiat or ex
head, regarded by Mormons as a separate person--and the nihilo creation--that God created the world from nothing,
Holy Spirit, the all-pervading agent of God’s actions.
including the space and time that the world is in.
All theistic religions which hold that God is a person, as is Aristotle held that God could not do anything because he
the case in Judaism, Islam, and the Christian churches gener- should already have done it, but St. Augustine, certainly one
ally, have anthropomorphic conceptions of God, since they of our brightest saints, pointed out that God could not have
describe God essentially in terms of human values. But Mor-already done anything before he created the world because
mon anthropomorphism is of the extreme type, where God is "already" involves time, and there was no time before the
described as being so human-like that unfortunately somecreation of time. In the eleventh book of the Confessions, St.
Mormons seem to think of God almost as if he were simply one Augustine’s brilliant psychological treatise on time, he avoided
of us, only a lot smarter than the rest of us, and, of course, way the temptation to say to those who insisted on asking "What
ahead of us. This overhumanization of the conception of Godwas God doing before he created the world?" that he was busily
is the weakest part of the Mormon theology and religion. A engaged in creating a proper hell for those who persist in
doctrine intended to emphasize the divinity that is latent in theasking this question.
human, too often it results in stressing the human in the It is well known that in denying the absolutistic conception
MARCH 1993
PAGE ar 1
S
UNSTONE
of God, Mormon theology denies the ex nihilo creation, holdIt is well known, of course, that Mormonism has much in
ing with the ancient Greek philosophers and most moderncommon with pragmatic philosophy. Both came out of New
scientists that the world is uncreated. In some form or other England, and both are intellectually descendent from Puritanthe world of space and time has always been. The Genesis ism. The Mormon activism is one of its obvious similarities to
account of the creation does not say that the world was made pragmatic philosophy, which judges in terms of results, and
from nothing, but that idea became important in both Judaismalso what might be called futurism, which issues from the
and Christianity as the absolutistic conception of God gainedstrong temporal emphasis of both Mormonism and pragmaground, for God as absolute could not be conditioned by or tism. Here I must succumb to the temptation to tell of an
related to anything external to himself
incident in a seminar given by William
except his own creation, and in a sense
Pepperell Montague, one of America’s
he included his creation. This was a
foremost philosophers. Montague said,
self-limitation, as today’s theologians
"Mr. McMurrin, I understand that you
sometimes describe it. In his late diaare a Mormon." When I assured him that
logue the Timaeus, Plato describes the
I was, he said, "All I know about the
constructor God, a demiurge, making
Mormons is what I have learned from my
friend and colleague Professor John
the world of particulars from uncreated
Dewey, the great pragmatist. Professor
matter after the patterns of the uncreDewey regarded Mormonism as an exated ideas or universals, a scenario
emplification of his instrumental pragsomewhat like the Mormon belief in two
matism writ large, and he once told me
creations or constructions, spiritual and
physical.
that when you Mormons die and go to
heaven you don’t get harps and play on
Or take the case of the American phithem like other Christians. Could that be
losopher William James, the chief philotrue?" I said, "That’s the truth, no harps."
sophic enemy of absolutism in all its
Montague continued, "Professor Dewey
forms. In a famous passage in his Pragtold me that in heaven you Mormons get
matism, a statement that should warm
jobs and go to work like in this life.
the hearts of the pragmatic Mormons,
Could that be true? .... Yes," I replied, "we
James says,
have to go to work." Whereupon MontaSuppose that the world’s author put
gue said, "Ah, I like that, I like that, that’s
the case to you before creation, saygreat; I was never partial to string music."
ing: "I am going to make a world
Every Mormon believes that the denot certain to be saved, a world the
nial of the ex nihilo creation entails the
perfection of which shall be condiidea that the essential being of a human
tional merely, the condition being
being, the intelligence, is uncreated. In
that each several agent does its own
his influential King Follett sermon
’level best.’ I offer you the choice of
shortly before his death, Joseph Smith
taking part in such a world. Its
insisted that humankind is uncreated
safety, you see, is unwarranted. It is
and co-equal with God. The Church felt,
a real adventure, with real danger,
quite rightly, that that was pushing the
yet it may win through. It is a social
point a little too far and edited "co-equal"
scheme of cooperative work genudown to mean "co-eternal." At any rate,
inely to be done. Will you join the
the human being turns out to be in an ultimate sense self-exprocession? Will you trust yourself and trust the other
istent, a necessary rather than accidental element of the world.
agents enough to face the risk?" (290-91.)
Now, Mormons take this idea very seriously, right down to If the uncreated intelligence is described in part in terms of
the point of joining up. The world is imperfect and unfinishedfreedom, that is, free will, as I think it should be, it provides an
and will never be finished. The future is as real for God as forimportant basis for the intense Mormon emphasis on free
his children; it is open, free, and undetermined. Anything canmoral agency.
happen. They and God are in this thing together, and they The pre-existence of the soul, or spirit, or mind, or whatever it might be called, is commonplace in some Eastern
must work through it together.
Confronting the problem of evil and suffering, Jamesreligions, but not in Christianity. The Alexandrian theologian
blasted those who say, as most religious people do to comfort Origen believed in pre-existence, but not like the Mormons.
themselves and others, "God is in his heaven and all is well."He believed that God created the soul in a pre-existent state. It
James said, in effect, "in times like these God has no businessis possible, but I think rather doubtful, that Plato held to a
hanging around Heaven. He is down in all the muck and dirtdoctrine of pre-existence in connection with his theory of
knowledge, that a human being is born with innate ideas
of the universe trying to clean it up."
PAGE 42
MARCH 1993
S
UNSTONE
acquired in a previous existence by direct contact with the the suffering caused by the natural world. Primitive religions
universals. But I agree with those who are inclined to think thatoften explain natural evils on the basis of moral behavior, as in
this was a kind of myth employed by Plato as an explanatory the case of God’s brutality in Genesis in drowning everyone for
device to account for knowledge. But two modern philoso- behaving badly, and then repenting after it was too late, saving
phers of major stature have held to the idea of uncreated only a rather well-packed boatload to start things all over
pre-existent souls: J. M. E. McTaggart of Scotland, who did not again. Today, of course, it is obvious that some of our suffering
believe in God, and George Holmes Howison, a theist who from natural causes is due to our immoral exploitation of
established the philosophical tradition at the University ofnature and of one another.
California.
There are several ways in which evil
Nothing in Mormon philosophy reand suffering have been explained short
ceives more attention from the faithful
of denying the reality, omnipotence, or
than the freedom of the will. But as far
omnibenevolence of God--from the
as I know, no accepted Mormon writer
"every cloud has a silver lining," and
has made any contribution to the basic
"God is in his heaven and all is well"
problem of free will versus determinism
syndromes, through the conversion of
within the context of the generally acmoral to aesthetic values, so that evil and
cepted principle of universal causation.
suffering are necessary to the total good,
Instead, there seems to be an uncritical
like the dissonant tones that are necesassumption of the so-called libertarian
sary to harmony, or the dark shadows in
conception of free will, where the cona work of art that are essential to the
nection of cause and effect is interrupted
beauty of the light--from such explanaby uncaused causes. Henry Eyring, who
tions as these to the denial that evil and
was an authority on the problems of
suffering are really real--all to preserve
quantum physics, and with whom ! disthe omnipotence of a God who apparcussed this matter extensively, held, as
ently doesn’t seem to care much for us in
have many others, that the Heisenberg
the first place. To the absolutist-pantheist
principle of uncertainty in the behavior
Spinoza’s insistence that we should see
of sub-atomic particles is a principle of
the world sub specie aeternitatis, from
indeterminacy. But, contrary to a quite
God’s standpoint, William James replied
popular opinion, I fail to see that this
in effect that it is high time that God saw
could have any relevance to the freedom
a few things from our standpoint.
of the will, at least until someone estabThe most persistent pattern for treatlishes that the will is an electron and that
ing this problem in technical Christian
the operations of such an individual
theology had its source, as might be exparticle can determine the course of
pected, in Platonism and Neoplatonism
events in the macroscopic world where
and was secured for Christian thought by
moral action takes place.
the writings of St. Augustine. In PlatonBut now to return to the issue that is
ism, as I have pointed out, the negative
so crucial to theology, how to account
facets of human experience, such as evil,
for evil and suffering if God is absolute
are laid at the door of matter, and unin power and absolute in goodness.
formed matter is non-being. In Plotinus
Only a comparatively primitive religion
and then St. Augustine, evil was regarded
would compromise the absoluteness of God’s goodness, and as real only in a negative, privative sense; as darkness is the
traditional occidental religion has held tenaciously to the belief
absence of the light, evil is the absence of the good. It is not
in the absolute power of God. This follows easily from thecaused by God; it is the absence of the influence of God. But
doctrine of creation ex nihilo. And here is the seat of the just why God would permit even a negative reality to stain his
trouble: Why does an all-powerful God either cause or permit world has been carefully hushed up as a mystery of the faith.
the surd evils and suffering of his creatures--the evils andThere’s no point in blaming it on the devil, for an omnipotent
suffering which they inflict on one another, the moral problem,God could take care of the devil in short order if he wanted to,
and the suffering of living things caused by the natural world,without waiting for the millennium, which is always coming
the natural problem. Moral evils, the evils committed bybut never quite makes it.
human beings, are commonly dealt with on the basis of free In the early period of the Hebraic religion, as evidenced in
will, but there is still the problem, except for Mormons, of whythe Old Testament, God seems to have been responsible for the
God permits the will to be free to the point of producing theevil as well as the good. He was ably assisted by a corps of good
heinous crimes that are so prevalent.
angels and bad brownies. But as the concept of God was
But the most difficult problem is the so-called natural evils,moralized by the prophets, the evil was eventually shunted off
MARCH 1993
PAGE 43
S
UN5TONE
on such characters as the Persian deity AnTra Mainyu, who and the leading contemporary theologian, Charles Hartshorne.
conveniently became the Christian devil. The theologians haveMormons should take some pleasure in Whitehead’s statement
never liked the devil and have usually more or less ignoredthat "that religion wi!l conquer which can render clear to
him. I think they have been embarrassed by him and don’tpopular understanding some eternal greatness incarnate in the
know quite what to do with him, but the conservatives are passage of temporal fact" (Adventures o.f Ideas, 41).
stuck with him. He is still around in fundamentalist religion But too many LDS preachers and writers, like the faintand in the mythology of Mormonism--and is still an embar-hearted in all religions, lust for the linguistic fleshpots of
rassment.
orthodoxy, the vocabulary of absolutism which provides a
Now, in Mormon theology and phiplethora of those words of assurance
losophy there seems to be some ground
which the religious seek. Words like infifor a theodicy that can account for natunite, absolute, eternal--and the host of
omni’s that the orthodox coin--roll
ral evil and suffering without implicatfrom the writer’s pen and resound from
ing God, for the Mormon God is not
omnipotent. He is limited by the matethe preacher’s pulpit with dogmatic and
comforting conviction. The vocabulary
rials at hand, which he did not create in
the first place, but which were the necof nonabsolutism, with words like limited, conditioned, finite, and temporal,
essary materials with which he conthe language of a religion of creativity,
structs and reconstructs the world. Nor
adventure, progress, and risk, simply
is he the ultimate creator of the laws that
doesn’t come off well in church. These
dictate the structure of the universe.
words don’t stir the emotions. This kind
Heresy of heresies, there apparently is
of religion, religion of struggle and failno ultimate creator. The totality of realure as well as victory, where the end is
ity has always existed alongside God.
not determined from the beginning, will
And in the matter of moral evils, the
always have an uphill battle. People simevils that are willfully done by human
ply do not like to take their problems to
beings, here again God is vindicated. He
a God who has problems of his own.
has to put up with working with these
recalcitrant free intelligences, which he
MORMONISM’S
did not create, just as he is caught in a
HUMAN ISTIC-NATURALISTIC
world of uncreated matter that doesn’t
QUALITIES
always behave.
At any rate, the Mormon theology, if
TURNING now to my third distinworked at properly, offers at least an
guishing characteristic of Mormonism,
opening for treating the most persistent
its humanistic-naturalistic qualities, I
problem in theistic religion, even
will make only a brief comment. But first
though at the same time it opens the way
a few words about the recent charges of
for other serious problems. The trouble
some evangelicals that the LDS religion is
is that most of those LDS leaders, profesnot Christian. Apparently this charge is
sors, and writers who seem to have a
based on two considerations: first, that
kind of proprietary claim on the theolMormonism does not accept the fourthogy too often fail to understand the pocentury Nicene Creed, which sets forth
tential intellectual strength of the radical, heretical ideas which their prophet propounded. Of course the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; and, second, that it does
those ideas are often trivialized, as I have said, to the point ofnot accept the doctrine that salvation is by grace only. Both of
nonsense, or are presented in crude and even vulgar terms, but these claims, of course, are quite true. Mormonism is tri-theisthe fundamental proposition that God is a nonabsolutistic,tic rather than trinitarian, and it believes that salvation definite being, moving in time and genuinely related to things pends
in upon both grace and works.
space and time that place limits upon him--ideas that are The Nicene Creed is basic in both Catholic and traditional
compatible with the belief that the deity is really a person inProtestant theology, expressing as it does the doctrine that God
the fullest sense of that word, related to the other persons in is one in substance and three in persons. Actually, the Creed
the process of creation--such a proposition sets forth an idea does not employ the term "person," but that came into the
and its implications that are now capturing the interest ofpicture later as an interpretation of its meaning. The Creed was
talented theologians from all corners of occidental religion. Asthe result of intense hassling over the status of Christ in the
I have indicated, the leading symbols of this movement ofmatter of his divinity and was a remarkable achievement
process philosophy, a movement in which Mormonism mightconsidering that it is soil the basic Christian symbol after
have been a leader, are philosopher Alfred North Whitehead almost seventeen hundred years. Now there is no scriptural
PAGE 44
MARCH 1993
S
UNST0NE
basis for the trinitarian doctrine which, in the Nicene Creed,belief, which is supported by the idea of the necessary exisemploys Greek metaphysics in holding that God is both one intence of the individual intelligence. It rejects the dogma of
substance and has three personae. This formula was tremen- original sin, which arguably is the worst idea ever to infect the
dously important, for here were the early Christians with twohuman mind. James E. Talmage called it that "belief... with
gods, the Father and the Son, and eventually, with the Holy its dread incubus as a burden which none can escape," which
Ghost, three gods on their hands, not only tied intimately to"has for ages cast its depressing shadow over the human heart
the intense Judaic monotheism, but also heavily involved withand mind" (The Vitality of Mormonism, 1919, 45).
the monistic metaphysics of Platonism and Stoicism. The Original sin is supposed to be a consequent of Adam’s fall,
Creed was a brilliant stroke. It provided
but the Mormons believe that it was a fall
for both the one and the three. The
upward, that Adam did just what God
Mormons are not the only tri-theists to
wanted him to do--what the philosobreak with the trinitarian theology. A
pher Arthur Lovejoy has happily called
notable case is Roscellinus in the elev"the paradox of the fortunate fall." The
enth century, whose nominalistic metaMormons, to employ the crude vernacuphysics dictated his break with the
lar, hold that in all this "fall" talk Adam
Creed. His tri-theism was, of course,
has received a bum rap. Always condeclared heretical.
cerned with women’s rights and anxious
The other basis for the charge against
that she receive full credit, they point out
Mormonism, that the Mormons do not
that Eve was responsible for the whole
believe in salvation by grace only, but
thing in the first place. Instead of the "fall
insist as well on works, does have a
of Adam," it should be called the "upscriptural basis--in the writings of the
ward reach of Eve."
Apostle Paul, especially his Letter to the
Luther and Calvin and today’s conserRomans. But it has nothing whatsoever
vative Protestants follow St. Augustine,
to do with the teachings of Jesus, to
who followed Paul, in holding that the
whom Paul paid little or no attention.
"fall" resulted in original sin, that human
His concern was with the risen Christ
nature is corrupt, that we sin because we
and how human beings who are in the
are sinful. The Mormons, with liberal
condition of sin can die and rise with
religionists generally, hold that this is
him--by confessing him as their savior.
nonsense, that we are sinful because we
Now, if it is necessary to accept the
sin. The official Catholic position on
Nicene Creed and believe in original sin
original sin is a mild, half-way doctrine.
in order to be Christian, the Mormons
Original sin is the loss of the supernatuwould do well to abjure that name. But
ral gift of sanctifying grace, but it is not a
since they believe in the divinity of
corruption of human nature. The natural
Christ and that he is their savior, the
reason is preserved. Both Catholics and
charge of non-Christian is something
Mormons, and also liberal Protestants-they should not be willing to accept.
perhaps the majority of members of the
Generally speaking, Mormons and
mainline churches--believe, therefore,
Catholics prefer the Epistle of James to
that human beings can contribute someRomans because it lays great stress on
thing to their own salvation, and perhaps
the moral teachings of Jesus and, in conthe salvation of others. This makes all the
trast and probably in opposition to Paul, it insists on moraldifference. It accounts for the life-affirming character of Morworks as a requisite for salvation. Very conservative Protestantsmonism. Mormons may experience sin when they smoke, or
generally are not favorable to James, whose author may have drink, or rob, or get involved in a little illicit sex. But they don’t
been a brother of Jesus. Martin Luther, who was intoxicated feel morally guilty just because they exist as human beings.
with Paul’s commitment to sin and grace, didn’t like James andNormally, they don’t suffer the anguish of being estranged from
refused to give it full canonical status.
God.
In a sense, the Mormon preference for James over Romans Mormon naturalism is, of course, an aspect of its materialis an index to what I have called Mormon humanism. Inism. In the Mormon conception of reality there is no supernatcontrast to Paul’s epistle, which is the chief source of theural. This is most evident, perhaps, in the conception of
doctrine of original sin, with all of its negative entailments and
miracles. There is no miracle in the traditional sense of an
overtones, James has a positive flavor with a life-affirming
intervention in the laws of nature. Mormons believe in miraquality that suggests the possibility of genuine moral advance-cles, but the apparently miraculous events are simply in prinment through human effort. Mormonism has essentially aciple the operation of natural law beyond human understandliberal doctrine of humankind, a typical nineteenth-centurying. Now it is possible to say that this is simply quibbling about
MARCH 1993
PAGE 45
S
UNSTONE
words, but the important thing here is the sense of continuityof what the people believed. He was quite right in holding that
of the natural and human with the divine. For Mormons, justthere must be something over and above this process of a being
as there is not a metaphysical opposition of the eternal and the becoming God.
temporal or of the spiritual and material, there is not a basic Now that is why I refer to the idea of Mormon naturalistic
contradiction of the supernatura! and natural--which trans- humanism. What must be over and above as the real ultimates
are the value universals, as Pratt apparently believed. For St.
lates into the divine and human.
Ideas such as these can be an open invitation to nonsense, Augustine, God’s mind was eternally stocked with the Platonic
and there has been without question a serious trivialization ofvalue absolutes and his mind determined his will, but the
spiritual matters in Mormon theology. Among Mormon writersMormon deity apparently had to work into it. Mormon theolone can find a fair share of what I would call uninhibitedogy is still in its formative stages, and I rather think it may
theological absurdity. Now in my opinion, most theology,eventually abandon this belief.
wherever it is found, is probably cognitively meaningless. But But the point is, who decides what these values are, such as
usually it is disguised by sophisticated-sounding language thatTruth, Beauty, and Goodness? Human beings decide, of course.
appears to make it not only meaningful but even believable.The Mormons believe that God legislates for human thought
Mormon theology is somewhat different from the norm. In itsand human behavior, but always the legislation is in terms of
concreteness and in the raw it appears to be meaningful, what passes as the best ideas and best insights of human
beings. In this, of course, Mormonism is no different in prinwithout the fancy linguistic garb that usually adorns theological discourse. But the problem is, it also appears to be false. At ciple from other religions--at least those that attempt, as
least it appears to be false unless one is able to make, as the Mormonism does, to be reasonable, or at least pretend to be
faithful Mormon makes, a complete about-face from the tradi- reasonable even when they are unreasonable. We create our
tional ways of thinking about God and the soul and the humangods in our own image, and they have a way of thinking our
best thoughts and echoing them back to us in revelation. This
condition.
There is in Mormonism a kind of folk theology, and whatis the anthropocentric paradox of all theistic religion. It’s simmight be called an esoteric theology, as well as the standard ply that Mormon theology makes this human, naturalistic
~
normative theology, but these are difficult to define. Perhaps itfoundation of religion a little more obvious.
is in the esoteric category that one of the most radical ideas in
Mormon thought appears, a complete contradiction to the
whole tradition of occidental theism, and, most critics would
agree, a contradiction of common sense: that God became the
supreme deity through some kind of process of achievement
that took him to the top, so to speak. Now I don’t want to
Bring me a guitar
pursue this line in any detail because I have real difficulty in
a song beats within me.
making any sense of it. But this is an established Mormon
belief. Back in the early fifties, the Mormon Bible scholar Heber
Bring me a guitar
C. Snell and I discussed this matter with the Mormon theoloa song flows through me
gian Joseph Fielding Smith. In reply to the question of how he
sounding its life-giving rhythm.
could hold that God is absolute while believing that God went
Bring me a guitar
through an educative process to achieve the status of deity,
President Smith gave the simple reply that he was a relative
before it’s too late.
being until he finally became God, and from that moment on
Hurry, bring me a guitar.
he was no longer relative but absolute. What can one say in
reply to that kind of argument? To put it crudely, who was
It pounds on my soul
minding the store, or the school, while all this process of
threatening to break me
becoming God was going on? Whoever it was, she has cerif I frustrate its birth.
tainly managed to keep herself well hidden in the background.
I am aware of the various attempts by Mormon writers to
Quick, bring me a guitar
justify this belief--an infinite series of Gods, the God of our
before this song steals
corner of the universe, and so on. But it seems to me that none
the meter of my life
of them makes sense, unless it was Orson Pratt’s attempt to
in its still passing.
invoke the Platonic universals in his famous statement in The
Seer that TRUTH, in all caps, is the ultimate God and that it is
Bring me a guitar.
TRUTH dwelling in the deity that makes him divine and an
I need a guitar
object of worship (Vol. 1:2, para. 22). Pratt was severely
witlh strings and fertile box
disciplined for his efforts, as he apparently described the
ultimate divine as impersonal. But he was just trying to do
to save me from this song.
what theologians are supposed to do, make some kind of sense
--DAVID CLARK KNOWLTON
PAGE ~-6
MARCH 1993