{"id":189,"date":"2006-01-05T13:39:56","date_gmt":"2006-01-05T20:39:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2006\/01\/do-mormons-believe-in-universals-mcmurrin-reading-part-3\/189\/"},"modified":"2020-01-09T06:40:05","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T13:40:05","slug":"do-mormons-believe-in-universals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2006\/01\/do-mormons-believe-in-universals\/189\/","title":{"rendered":"Do Mormons believe in Universals? (McMurrin reading part 3)"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this installment of my reading club for Sterling McMurrin’s 1965 book The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion<\/em> I’ll cover pages 13-18. By doing so I am only 18 months behind Clark<\/a> and Dave<\/a> who did the same thing in the summer of ’04.<\/p>\n

On Universals and Particulars<\/strong><\/p>\n

In my last post<\/a> I noted that McMurrin places the Mormon concept of reality firmly in the ever-moving becoming<\/em> camp (as opposed to the static, timeless being<\/em> camp). In the next section of the book he asks whether there is place in Mormonism for “anything that is genuinely stable and unchanging”. His answer is yes. But he notes that the unchanging absolutes in Mormonism are principles or ideas. For instance, he suggests that the moral will of God or his divine purpose is considered absolute in Mormonism. He also mentions that in Mormonism natural laws “are at least stable if not absolute”. <\/p>\n

In defining “particulars” and “universals”, McMurrin provides some useful comments:<\/p>\n

A just act is a particular, but justice is a universal. A true proposition is a particular, but truth is a universal. A good act is a particular, but goodness is a universal, and so forth<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He notes that the notion that such universals as Truth and Justice have some kind of objective reality independent of any true or just acts might have been Plato’s<\/a> most important idea and even maybe the most important of all philosophic ideas. Plato called such universals Ideas<\/a> (with a capital “I”) and traditional Christianity under the guidance of Augustine melded Plato’s universals with the Hebrew God and made these desirable universals all part of God’s mind.<\/p>\n

As for Mormon theology and universals, McMurrin writes:<\/p>\n

The reality of universals is taken for granted in typical Mormon theology … Mormon writers often use such words as “laws” or “principles” to indicate such universals. But the point is – and it is a decisive one – that at least some of the universals are commonly regarded as existing independently of God, their status being remarkably like that assigned them by early Platonism – impersonal absolutes that are the foundation of reality. Indeed, some Mormon theologians even account for God’s status in terms of his relationship to the universals, where in his divinity he is in a sense subject to them rather than they subject to him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is very true of the theology of Widtsoe. In the most extreme case, Orson Pratt suggested that the universals such as Truth and Justice were in fact the ultimate God and as such the ultimate God is not a person at all. It should be noted that Brigham Young vehemently disagreed with this particular theory of Orson Pratt’s and the First Presidency officially denounced it. <\/p>\n

A fine example of Mormonism’s tendency toward believing in universals is the last few verses of the hymn If you could Hie to Kolob<\/em>:<\/p>\n

4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
\nThere is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.
\nThere is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
\nThere is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.
\n5. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
\nThere is no end to being; There is no death above.
\nThere is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
\nThere is no end to being; There is no death above. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But lest you think the tendency in Mormonism is firmly in favor of universals as opposed to particulars, McMurrin concedes that we tend to want to be in both camps:<\/p>\n

On the other hand, there is evidence in Mormonism on rather strong tendencies in the direction of nominalism<\/a>, the view that only particulars are real, particular events or objects, and that so-called universal are but names, or at best useful concepts<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He goes on to point to our insistence on the individuality and separateness of the members of the Godhead as an example of this.<\/p>\n

Even so, I tend to think that the Mormon tendency toward universals beats out our desire for nominalism when push comes to shove. So that leaves me with a view of Mormonism where all reality is about motion and becoming<\/a>, yet our progress is guided by “True North” principles\/universals like Truth, Goodness, Justice, and Love which are beginningless and exist independently of us or God. Others will argue that things like truth and justice are not universals but rather social contracts established between us all either here or prior to this earth.<\/p>\n

What do you think?<\/p>\n

[Associated radio.blog song: de la soul – the magic number<\/em>. (Yeah it’s a bit of a stretch but this is post number 3 in the series and I like the song ok?)]