There are two ways to look at what there is in the world. You can say that things in the world developed or appeared and became what they are as a result of the long chain of events that happened in history. Or you can say that, in some sense, the essence of things in the world existed (in some sense or manner) and later emerged or were realized over the course of history. That reflection came while reading A Brief History of France: An Introduction to the People, History and Culture (Robinson Books, 2017, rev’d and updated edition) by Cecil Jenkins. Let’s talk about France, then get back to Mormonism.
The author takes issue with the view of traditional French historians who stressed French exceptionalism by affirming some unique and unifying essence to France or Frenchness. Here’s the quotation:
[A]t the end of his vast study L’Identite de la France, the recent great historian Ferdinand Braudel was left to conclude not only that France is diverse, but that “its diversity is manifest, enduring and structural.” Some of the earlier French historians, on the other hand, have not helped by encouraging an essentialist view of the national history with such expressions as “the soul of France,” “eternal France,” and “the French genius,” as though there pre-existed a quintessential Frenchness determining historical developments rather than the reverse …. (p. 239)
He’s claiming that whatever Frenchness there is to the people, culture, and land of France is the *result* of its history rather than the cause or driving force of its history. He is taking Sartre’s claim about human individuals, that existence precedes essence, and applying it more broadly. I believe he would agree with the view that, had certain events happened differently, what we view as the Frenchness of France might have turned out rather differently than we see it now. If Eiffel had died as a child, there wouldn’t be an Eiffel Tower, for instance. This view assumes that history could have turned out differently, of course: that Eiffel could have died as a child. That Eiffel was not somehow predestined to design and build his tower. Orthodox Calvinists (if there are any left) would disagree with that view.
Without belaboring the point, let’s transpose that view to Mormonism and the LDS Church. The claim would be that the doctrine, organization, and culture of the Church is what it is as a result of its history. It could have turned out rather differently had certain events played out in a different way, say if Joseph had not gone to Carthage with his brother in 1844 or if David Patten had not died in a skrimish in Missouri in 1838 and lived to succeed Joseph Smith or if Martin Harris had not pledged his farm to fund the printing of the Book of Mormon. This is the view that there is no pre-existing essence or matrix for the Church: it is what it is today because it became what it is in the course of historical events such as they happened. It could have turned out differently.
So the discussion question is:
- Could Mormonism and the LDS Church have turned out differently, perhaps dramatically so?
- Or is there a pre-existing essence to the doctrine, organization, and culture of the Church that necessarily appeared and history could not have played out any different than it did, giving us the Church as it presently is.
Wheat & Tares 
Joseph Smith could have quit at the first persecution. I suppose that would have changed our history.
Maybe God would have called another prophet?
I think there’s something to be said that Mormonism could have turned out differently than it had. We know through incidents discussed, say, in Paul Reeves’ “A Religion of a Different Color”, that Orson Pratt voted against the Fillmore incorporation nearly a decade before the Civil War because it disallowed black enfranchisement! So, at the very least, these ideas were percolating in the same climate that would eventually produce the priesthood ban.
And I also want to say (because of your side comment on Calvinism), that based on the limited understanding of God in Mormonism, it makes sense to speak of Mormonism as not having an essential component and being (basically) whatever people want it to be. I think that Mormons often want to have it both ways though — they want libertarian free will, but they also want the idea that God would not *allow* leaders to lead the church into catastrophic error. This doesn’t make sense in a Calvinist worldview where God’s sovereignty is primary — predestination is just the logical outcome of walking that through.
Thaaaat being said (and your side comment on Calvinism intrigued me here), I think there’s something to be said to pushback against the libertarian free will thinking of Mormonism. That is, people do have personalities and motivations that they follow (although maybe you disagree with this). There is another option than the options that there is a pre-existing essence to the doctrine, organization and culture OR that said doctrine, organization, and culture could have been anything at all. Even discounting the Calvinist idea of a supreme and sovereign God, the Calvinist understanding of will can be understood in that people will freely choose to act according to their predilections, but they do not choose what their predilections will be.
So, to relook at the question of Gustave Eiffel. Assuming the Eiffel Tower fits God’s plans, Calvinism might say that God would know, foreordain, and predestine for Gustav Eiffel to be the type of person who would want to build such a thing, and would have known that nothing would happen to prevent or frustrate that.
Even without a sovereign, supreme, all-knowing God, we can still question whether or not Eiffel’s personality and predilections would have led him to work on that project.
But in Mormonism (and other libertarian free will worldviews), predilections don’t really mean anything, because anyone can choose to do anything physically possible for them to do, seemingly regardless of personality, predilections, or motivations.
I used to think that there was a grand prescribed destiny of the church, but seeing the great influence just a few people have had on the church in my lifetime I no longer hold to that thought. I do think that in a few more decades Mormonism will be different than today, possibly dramatically different.
My view on this is a bit of a chaotic mess. I’m an artist and deeply inherit to the artistic experience for me is this idea (feeling?) that the creation exists outside of me and is trying to express itself through me. I fully accept that this might be how I experience artistic creation and not what is really going on, but its such a foundational experience to how I create that I can’t entirely write it off.
But… I also feel strongly that the creation picks of pieces of me along the way. So that what it becomes ends up being unique because I am unique and the same creation, brought to life by a different artist, would have the same essence, but a very different manifestation.
If it wasn’t Joseph Smith, it wouldn’t be Mormonism as we know it. And we have tons of examples of that. Buddhism looks nothing like Mormonism. Neither does Taoism. Or Islam. Or…. (fill in the blank). Each of the ‘prophets’ of these ‘religions’ had their own creative manifestation reflecting the same essence of God.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Broad topic, I know.
Andrew S., the history issue (determined or “open”) is certainly similar to the free will versus determinism issue for individuals. If we introspect, it certainly seems like we have free will. But the institutions or states or forces or “essences” that move through history aren’t conscious and don’t have a will, so it’s not a free will discussion (and it is nice to be able to set aside the free will issue). If there is some transcendental, autonomous “soul of France” is expressing itself through French history, no one argues this is some sort of conscious entity making free will choices to win this or that battle or incite food riots in Paris. Hegelians don’t necessarily view God as the force that works itself out through history, so it is not really a God versus naturalism issue either. But rejecting any sort of transcendent theme or matrix for human history, divine or otherwise, leaves us with a view of human history as just one thing after another, a causal chain to events if one is looking backwards but no predictable or foreseeable or meaningful path going forward. It’s like driving down a very foggy freeway at 70 mph like Californians do: you’re going somewhere fast, but you have no clear idea where you are or where you’re going.
But putting God in the driver’s seat of history doesn’t really clarify the picture as much as one might think. Does God control every event? Does God allow events to follow the causal chain (every event has a cause) but only (somehow) control certain key outcomes? Or does a Deist God simply create a big universe that follows causal laws of nature and not interfere at all? So I think anyone tempted to think that invoking God’s guiding hand as justification for dismissing the whole issue of how history works, how things like Mormonism come to be as a result of events in history, is mistaken. However you look at it, it is an interesting problem.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Happy Hubby, that’s a great point. The extent to which LDS doctrines and broader views change in just a generation or two poses something of an issue for those who think God is controlling events with a strong hand. Either God isn’t very good at moving events in His preferred direction, or He keeps changing His mind where He wants the Church to go. Many wives or just one? Polygamy in heaven or not? Black skin as a curse or all are alike unto God? Work our way to heaven or rely on God’s grace?
ReTx, artists certainly look at and experience the creative process differently than the rest of us. There seems to be a split between artists, many of whom think they are giving voice or expression to something outside or above themselves, and philosophers or humanists who see the art or order originating in the human psyche and being imposed on the material used by the artist or the words written by the poet. As quoted on the Internet, Michelangelo said: ” The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.”
Your post brings to mind something a friend of mine once said, “God put a hit on Joseph because he was getting pretty sketchy.” I’m not sure that how much I believe her theory, but the last few years in Nauvoo were… interesting to say the least. Some writers have described him as essentially megalomaniacal in his last years. Given that the Council of 50’s ordaining him king (over the council so far as I can recall – some claim he was ordained King of the World), I can understand the sentiment, even if I don’t share it. Had he survived into old age, I have no idea which way the Church would have gone, but I tend to think that, if he agreed to go west, he would have attempted to carve out a literal Kingdom of God in the desert, with himself on the throne in preparation for Christ’s return, and made attempts to resist federal annexation of the limits of that kingdom. I don’t think that scenario would have ended well and I don’t think my great-grandmother and grandmother would have joined the Church in 1946, hence I wouldn’t be a Mormon.
Dave B,
Pardon me, I didn’t realize that when people argued for a “spirit of France” they were arguing about something that exists apart from the French people, collectively. As if there is some sort of literal 3rd party entity or individual of France rather than collective trends in how French people (or any other people) may act over time.
So would you say that my interpretation that people collectively create history through their actions is by default an argument against “essentialism”?
Because that’s why I was getting back to free will. I *don’t* think it’s an argument against essentialism necessarily, because there are other ways to interpret it that don’t rely on anything being possible if people themselves have essences. But I totally concede that it’s not the same thing as “disembodied force or energy or spirit of France.”
To respond to something you said:
Not necessarily. Human history can indeed by just one thing after another, BUT that doesn’t mean there is “no predictable or foreseeable or meaningful path going forward.” To assume that there is not assumes that people don’t have motivations, inclinations, predilections, or that their actions are not informed (or determined) by these. I can say that even without a divine or otherwise matrix that humans have motivations, these motivations inform or determine our actions, and therefore make our actions predictable.
If i’m going down a foggy freeway at 70 mph, it’s not *for no reason*. It’s not a brute force choice. It’s a choice because I *want* to go somewhere, and more particularly, I want to go somewhere specific. Otherwise, I would have just stayed home.
I understand libertarian free will people don’t perceive their own actions like this as being constrained by motivations, so I understand that some people may still disagree with this analysis.
Let me address a different thought you had to put it another way:
I’d want to critique whether these scenarios are really all that different. If a Deist God created a big universe that had certain causal laws of nature, he wouldn’t need to interfere for there nevertheless to not be freedom. If God created gravity (laws of nature) and create dominoes in a row, then he doesn’t need to control every single domino to know that knocking one over is enough to guarantee that everything else in the row will fall accordingly simply by following causal laws of nature.
Humans are admittedly more complex than dominoes, but for there to be freedom in history means that there must be some component that is not responsive to laws of nature, not response to causality. So i still think it gets back to free will.
anyway, ping me privately if i’m derailing the discussion too much, haha
I’m kind of similar to ReTx in viewing this as a combo thing. Yes, there might be a core essence that is predetermined, but much that surrounds that core essence is heavily influenced by individuals and personal agency. I definitely believe that if you changed a big element (time, place, actors), there would be a butterfly effect and things in the church would look very different today. But I don’t see it that it means God predestined all those pieces to be there at that particular time, more that God had an objective and he worked with the pieces he had when conditions became acceptable.
I think the “essence” of an organization is determined by its history, but going forward, its essence constrains and influences the behavior of the individuals that comprise it. This essence is encoded in a variety of ways, from shared attitudes to policies to structure to records to decision-making. So really, it’s a slowly evolving essence that gives and takes from the individuals that comprise the group.
This slowly evolving essence is the only thing that keeps a long-lived group’s identity intact. Let me explain.
Because of the nearly exclusive, mostly random choice of sperm at conception, precisely which human being is born is mostly random. “Go back in time to kill Adolph Hitler” is a wasteful idea. “Go back in time to step in front of Adolph Hitler’s dad on his way home from work on a day before his conception” is efficient and effective. If Adolph is conceived even a millisecond early or late, he’s not the Adolph we know and hate anymore.
It stands to reason that whether Mormonism even exists depended critically on such close timing. Now that we have it, however, the only thing keeping it recognizable as Mormonism is its slowly evolving essence, which constrains and influences its adherents to be Mormons, regardless of who they are in particular.
This is a thought-provoking question and follow-up discussion. It’s apparent that the doctrines and core tenets of the church have undergone some evolution over time–are these manifestations of essential Mormonism (a perfect guiding hand over a fallible institution), a continued unfolding of the restoration (the church is perfect yet eternally progressing), institutional responses to changing social norms (as an uncommitted observer might infer), or some other process? Happy Hubby suggests a few influential people–presumably those in the First Presidency–steer the ship in ways that seem correct to them to be then succeeded by someone else who will steer the ship differently according to their own perspectives and motives. This sentiment suggests the church under Brigham Young was already quite removed from its founding in upstate New York, and we’ve evolved further since. This raises several questions that we could debate all day, including:
Would we actually join Joseph Smith’s church today if we were given the chance?
Is it the doctrine that makes the church true? Or is it true because we have the priesthood in an unbroken chain since restoration to Joseph Smith?
Does the priesthood authority evolve independently from or corresponding to changes in doctrine?
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Nice discussion.
Andrew S., the import of “essentialism,” at least as referenced by the author I quoted, was that there was some “essence” of France or Frenchness to the collective body above and beyond, or really before, the collective body of citizens or residents of France. So if you reject any sort of essence along those lines and maintain instead that whatever it is that is Frenchness emerges from the collective actions of humans living in France over the natural course of history — yes, that would be rejecting essentialism.
Right trousers, “slowly evolving essence” is sort of a compromise term. Strictly speaking, the essence of a thing is specifically that which does not change. Accidental properties are those things which can change but not alter the identity (or essence) of the thing itself. Paint a table blue, it’s still a table. Burn it to a pile of ashes, it’s no longer a table. What is the essence of Mormonism, that which cannot change without making it no longer Mormon? That’s an interesting question. Perhaps the next post.
Harry B., thanks for weighing in. I would agree that most of the time, or perhaps all of the time, LDS leaders simply take the problem or issue before them and make the best decision they can arrive at given the present circumstances. There is no big picture or cosmic blueprint they are working from or towards (other than making the Church bigger and richer). As for joining Joseph Smith’s church, that’s another interesting question. Great idea for a novel. Call it “Walking Into Nauvoo.”
Really great post. It’s basically the same as the individual nature vs. nurture question. Are we who we are because our essence is a thing all its own (our eternal self) or do the events of our lives create who we become? Identity is too hard to separate this way. I tend to think that certain outcomes in history became inevitable, although the particulars might have come out slightly differently. For example, if Hitler had never existed would Germany still have become so nationalist and toxic toward the Jews? I tend to think yes, in some form, it would have. The economy drove that. Hitler just emerged as a leader with an effective propaganda machine. Would someone else have done so? Maybe. Nature hates a vacuum.
Likewise with the Second Great Awakening, of which Mormonism was a part. We weren’t the only religion to form at the time or for largely the same reasons, but we had a unique flavor that others were lacking. Some even had their own books of scripture and pentacostal manifestations like speaking in tongues (as we did). So those things were in the air anyway, brought about by history.
And yet if you look at individuals being a product of nature or nurture, I tend to think as individuals we do have an essential individual personality that transcends…no, maybe just interprets and responds to our situations in a specific way. If I were born in another country, in another time, in a different family, with a different economic situation, would I still be the same type of person I am? The problems I faced would differ, but I have to believe that I am more than a byproduct of my circumstances, that there is a “me” to me. I’m not sure I afford France that same allowance.