Product Description

A Philosopher, Sterling M. McMurrin (1914-96) appreciated the similarities between Mormonism and Hellenistic Christianity. For instance, Church Fathers of the fifth century admired Plato, who taught that there is one God, coexistent with such eternal entities as Justice and Loveâ€"to which Joseph Smith added Priesthood and Church. Where Augustine modified Plato, Mormonism would tend to side with his critic, the Stoic-leaning Pelagius. In this broad context, what is Mormonism's contribution to the overall pursuit of life's fundamental, ontological questions? Herein lies McMurrin's intentâ€"an invitation to join him on a wide-ranging search for purpose. He finds his church's synthesis of heresy and orthodoxy to be refreshing and impressive in this light, in its treatment of evil, sin, and free will. Belief in a personal God may run counter to traditional faith, but it is nonetheless emotionally satisfying and accessible to the human imagination.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1082735 in Books
• Published on: 1965-04-06
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 220 pages

From the Publisher
This book also contains The Philosophical Foundation of Mormon Theology as an apendix.

About the Author
McMurrin was E. E. Ericksen Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah and U. S. commisioner of Education under President John F. Kennedy. Of his nine books, Theological Foundations is considered to be his masterpiece.

Customer Reviews

Hands down the best book on LDS Theology
Sterling is comprehensive in his introductory comparisons of LDS theology to the history of philosophical theology in the West. This book explores the important inovations and contributions LDS theology makes to the larger framework of Christian theology. The book is a bit technical for those with no background in philosophy or theology, but perfect for the student of these subjects who wants to understand LDS philosophical perspectives. Included is an excellent appendix on the LDS concept of God.

Mormon Theology
First of all, readers should read what Harold Bloom has to say in his book "The American Religion" which is available on Amazon. He quotes and discusses McMurrin's ideas.

It is true that LDS theology has two "branches" but to name them Technical and Prophetic is special pleading. "Technical" fits the second, prophetic, branch better in that it captures its similarity to conservative Christian churches - for example an unthinking interpretation of scriptures similar to those churches and following pastoral dictates without thinking. Call the first branch "Philosophical" if you like - it does approach the theology philosophically. Call the second branch "Conservative". It is questionable whether the bulk of the 12 million Church members can be assigned to the conservative second branch, unless that just means the unthinking sheep. I suspect that a fair number of Mormons want to think for themselves. Remember that Joseph Smith invited people of other religions to Nauvoo, including Muslims! Both branches look to the scriptures. They just interpret them differently. It is not really true that the Conservative branch focuses more on the scriptures. In fact there are older scriptures and thoughts of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young which the the Conservative branch ignores, avoids and minimizes in their attempt to be more like the American conservative Christian churches. LDS theology that is different from those churches, and is distinctively Mormon, is ignored.

As for miracles, McMurrin is not saying there are no miracles. He is saying that from God's perspective there are no miracles, which is a different thing altogether. That is really just saying that God knows what he is doing even if we don't. Joseph Smith really got into early Christianity and all its philosophical debates, and often his doctrines explicitly rejected orthodox Christianity's interpretations. Pelagius was condemned as a heretic for believing too much in good works rather than salvation by grace only, and any serious student of early Christianity knows his name. Most educated Roman Catholics would. LDS Authorities don't refer to him so, yes, most Mormons probably don't know the name. They just follow a Church that follows Pelagius' leanings, just as they follow the same leanings in the Epistle of James which many orthodox Christians (e.g. Martin Luther) dislike or ignore. One can say that McMurrin is using Joseph Smith filtered through B.H. Roberts, but why not say instead that McMurrin and Roberts are seeing Joseph Smith in a similar way?

I for one do not agree that McMurrin garbles the message. Scholars of early Christianity are all aware of the influence of Greek philosophy on the formation of orthodox Christianity. After all Jesus preached in a Hellenic Jewish influenced environment, and many if not most of the early Christian converts were such people. So why wouldn't Joseph Smith have taken that milieu and philosophy into account as well? I think it is the Philosophical branch that is addressing historical reality and the Conservative branch that is avoiding it.

Accurate and concise overview of essential Mormon theology
Do not think of this as an A-Z explanation of Mormon dogma, but rather an analysis of essential Mormon beliefs about the nature of deity and how they fit within the context of traditional Christian philosophy. Dr. McMurrin covers many historical dilemmas in theology, such as the extent of God's power, original sin and the problem of evil, specifically addressing how Mormonism's unique synthesis of heresy and orthodoxy equip it to respond well to these challenges. He also addresses the level of awareness within Mormonism of these concepts, and how neo-orthodox movements in Mormonism have caused some to unwittingly distance themselves from its most beneficial doctrines.