Comments on: Defining Mormon Materialism, circa 1840s

By: Juvenile Instructor » Joseph Smith, Thomas Dick, and the Tricky Task of Determining Influence

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:49:33 +0000

[...] I’ve said elsewhere, however, these tidy categories are often more of a disservice than a help, because not only are [...]

By: Clark

Clark — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:07:24 +0000

Just to clarify since that paragraph is a tad confusing.

Rewrite it to

I know a lot of people were really influenced by McMurrin. But I don’t see the influence on how people thought about materialism.

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:41:53 +0000

To riff on the McMurrin comment though… Does anyone thin McMurrin had much of an effect on how Mormons thought about materialism? I know a lot of people were really influenced by McMurrin. But I don’t see the influence.

I think the big influence in the 20th century was frankly science education. That is due to the 19th century analysis and emphasis of God as embodied Mormonism was much more open to the scientific worldview. Yes, there was the backlash due to evolution and literalism with regards to Genesis. But beyond those minor skirmishes Mormons tended to read science as speaking to theology. By the time FARMS arises in the 80′s the scientific stance of Roberts, Widstoe, Eyring, and Talmage is taken for granted and using science more rigorously as a premise from which to understand theology and history is taken for granted. And of course in the more liberal wing of Mormonism the same thing was going on, only more so.

Given that, I’m not sure McMurrin is much beyond an indicator of the trends already in 20th century Mormonism.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:29:27 +0000

Paperweight: This post has dealt with the historical context of Mormon materialism and how it compares to its historical contemporaries. If we were to deal with the philosophical ramifications of this development then yes, I guess, we would engage McMurrin.

And judging by your tone of the comment and your missing the point of the post, I can tell you are not familiar with the blog and just wanted to make an impact by showing that you have read McMurrin’s work. Please, we love engagement and differing viewpoints, but just present them in a respectable way (not to mention explaining what you actually found problematic) rather than just doing a drive-by name dropping in an attempt to prove that you are better read than us. The former approach is what we hope for here; the latter is rather galling.

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:13:40 +0000

Umm. My personal feeling is that the less said about McMurrin the better. I think his book a mess.

By: Paperweight

Paperweight — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:48:25 +0000

How in the world could both the poster and the commenters write about Mormon materialism without even mentioning Sterling McMurrin? His book answers these questions better than anything written here.

By: Defining Mormon Materialism : Mormon Metaphysics

Defining Mormon Materialism : Mormon Metaphysics — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:27:52 +0000

[...] Defining Mormon materialism in the 1840’s at the Juvenile Instructor. The discussion in the comments was quite good. I’m looking forward to the mentioned papers. [...]

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:17:48 +0000

Ben, I look forward to your article.

Ryan, I think my point is ultimately that the movements have discussions on a certain higher level due to lower level ontological considerations. But one can be convinced on some higher level (say the unity of all things) without embracing a particular ontological position (say degrees of idealism culminating in the immaterial One).

I’m not sure that makes sense. It’s more akin to say how Marx could appropriate Hegel while embracing a much more materialistic streak. In the same way I think it’s hard to read Young without noticing a strong idealist streak but it’s also hard to consider Young as either an Emerson styled neoPlatonist let alone a Hegelian. He was very pragmatic but I think the way he considered things was very idealist and ultimately pragmatic.

I agree about Ben’s studies. I think all these relations are complex and its unfortunate that they have all too often been very oversimplified. (Once again thinking of Quinn)

By: Ryan T

Ryan T — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:29:25 +0000

Clark…interesting characterizations of idealism in America and fascinating distinction between the thought of Pratt and Young/Smith, as you put it. To me these seem to hold true. I think your closing point suggests that traditional materialism/idealism categories may be too hard-edged to be meaningful ways to think about both American Transcendentalism and Mormonism, since both are highly interested in aspects of those philosophies but silent or unconcerned with others. Seems like studies like Ben’s are useful since they teach how Mormonism, etc. relates with discourses like materialism…but emphasizes how these relations are oblique, tangential, complicated.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:43:05 +0000

Thanks, all, for the participation.

Clark: thanks for your engagement and questions here. I deal with Mormon concepts of spirits and angels in an angelology paper coming out later this year, so I’ll reserve my comments for that. Sam MB’s manuscript also deals with it as well (in a lot more comprehensive sense in regards to Mormon ontology).

J: Agreed.

Cynthia: I’ll try and do better next time

Ryan: thanks–it was through discussions with you and others that helped these thoughts crystalize.

Mark: thanks for the response–I agree with you on many points. Not to weakly push off the topic again (like I did with Clark), but I have a paper coming out with dialogue next year on early Mormon embodiment that deals with a lot of those issues.