Robert, so far as I know only LDS-Herm has Adam making an explicit Mormon/Buddhist engagement. I largely agree with him although I really don’t like using the term grace to refer to all that. The problem is that this immanent secular grace which is basically the happening of the universe seems to be different from grace as Mormons understand it which is gifts from God. The reason is due to the ontology Mormons have rejecting both creation ex nihilo as well as rejecting more Platonic conceptions of God as the One with all emanating from him. That is God is an actor within the universe. The whole hellenistic absolutism, while not fully rejected, is fully rejected as a discourse about God. This has lots of implications I think but it also undermines a lot of aspects of the Buddhist/Mormon connection.

Derek, the sin/unclean distinction is a common Old Testament one. Any good commentary on Leviticus should go through it, especially chapter 11. Here’s a brief one I found online. (I didn’t read it thoroughly so I hope it’s half decent)

With regards to freedom whether or not the universe is deterministic doesn’t solve things as well as one assumes. An universe that ontologically involves chance (as most physicists assume) still has the same implications. Alfred Mele has written on this. His Free Will and Luck is a good primer.

With regards to moral agency, that’s Blake’s big position. Basically that God would be wrong to punish us if we didn’t have to capability of the type of morality offering real deserts. So it’s an argument from God’s actions. I confess I don’t buy this for a variety of reasons. It seems to me that within a Mormon framework God puts us where we are best able to flourish based upon whatever part of our nature he can’t control. As such punishment seems to take a very, very different conception within Mormonism. To the degree some say it’s a type of universalism. (I disagree, but I think the difference ends up being semantic)

The type of moral agency the the scriptures talk about just isn’t the type of free will that contemporary philosophers talk about in my view. That’s not to say one has to embrace compatibilism. I’m frankly agnostic on that question. Just that I don’t think our theological commitments require us to embrace the kind of libertarian agent free will that Blake does.

With regards to knowledge, I’d note that I don’t think we’re necessarily committed to position of greek absolutism. That is we just require God have some foreknowledge not total foreknowledge. Because of Blake’s commitment to libertarian agent free will he rejects all foreknowledge except God knowing he can bring something about because of his power versus the power to could potentially oppose him. I think Blake’s wrong in this for a variety of reasons.

Clark (21):
God’s Moral Otherness:
I think you are right that there is something misleading about saying that Christ is other. I’ve wondered if Christ is far more human (morally speaking) than we sometimes believe. A worry I’ve had is that the way we sometimes talk about Christ puts him so far above the rest of humanity that it makes Alma 7:11 seem untrue or inaccurate.

Moral Law:
I haven’t read Blake Ostler’s view on morality. I’ve given a lot of thought to these issues (metaethics is my particular area of research), and I think that probably something like the following sketch is correct (and it sounds like this may be somewhere in the ballpark of Ostler’s view):
Moral facts obtain in virtue of relations obtaining between agents. So that the grounds for moral facts are the relationships that hold between individuals. This allows for context sensitivity, since relations are constantly changing and a particular to individuals. This also allows for mind-independence (in some sense) (i.e., objectivity, or in some weak sense universality) because whether I think a relation holds or not does not determine whether it does (although there might be some cases that don’t fit this quite right). This makes sense out of Christ’s statement that the first two commandments are about relationships between agents.

I am worried about natural law theories, in part because I think they have a problematic metaphysics. So, I don’t conceive of moral laws in that way. On my view, moral laws might be moral like descriptions of certain properties that obtain when agents arrange themselves in relation to other agents intentionally, dispositionally, or in some other ways.

Of course, I can’t say any of that without recognizing there are problems and gaps. But, I think something like that might be correct.

Rachael (23):
Polygamy:
There is a two-step process you are recognizing in Joseph Smith’s teachings on polygamy:

Step 1: Polygamy is a refiner’s fire/Abrahamic sacrifice.
Step 2: Polygamy is a new spiritual/moral law.

I think I can see this from the historical stuff that I have read. So, I won’t dispute that. It’s at Step 2 that you think the really damaging stuff happens (the “devaluation and instrumentalization of women and children”). So your argument is that, supposing Step 2 is the will of God, then it challenges the view that God is, himself, subject to moral laws. In fact, it is evidence that God legislates the moral law. Is this right?

First off, I don’t know what to think about the polygamy stuff. That’s an area I don’t feel I have formed concrete views about. I am sort of hoping someone will say something really clear and helpful about it that I can just endorse. But second, I don’t think that committing to Step 2 being God’s will entails that God legislates THE Moral Law. Perhaps God does legislate (lower-case m) moral laws, while still being subject to The Moral Law, or something like this. In which case, God can as the mediator of Moral Law legislate moral laws that will facilitate our learning The Moral Law, but which are somehow preparatory or some such. I suggest this as a possible alternative, not as a view I am endorsing.

In any case, I think you are providing an interesting challenge I haven’t thought about much before. Am I getting your argument correct?

Rachael (Main Post):
Flourishing and Transformation:
First, could you say some more about what you think the claim that God and humans not being ontologically distinct can do for reconciling Taylor’s dichotomy?

Second, my own thought on this is that part of what it means to flourish (in Mormon thought) is to be transforming. But transformation is not a sufficient condition for flourishing (let’s concede that we can transform in regressive ways). The plan (as I understand it) was for God’s children to grow and progress (i.e., transform) towards becoming more like God—a normative ideal with a moving horizon. In this way, the concepts of progressive transformation and flourishing can’t be entirely pulled apart.

Clark (24):
Freedom:
I agree that the war in heaven is a decisive objection to the view that mortality and(/or) separation from God are needed for free agency. I think part of the problem in developing an account of agency, is that the questions we are trying to find answers for are not entirely clear. What’s the shape of the problem?

Here are some of the claims people make that might seem in tension:
(1) Human beings have moral agency (in some non-compatibilist sense).
(2) God has perfect foreknowledge.
(3) We live in an apparently deterministic universe.
(4) Humans are morally responsible for their moral actions.

The problem is that (1) and (4) are in tension with (2) and (3). A first pass of making these sorts of things jive better: (2) God has perfect foreknowledge, but not absolute foreknowledge. This is a weakening of (3) to make it compatible with (1) and (4). And second, deny (3). The evidence for this relies on either a strong version of (2) or Newtonian physics. We’ve done away with the strong version of (2), and we think Newtonian physics is wrong—although, it’s not clear that an indeterministic universe is better—and it’s also not clear what sort of universe we do live in. I think it is probably neither indeterministic nor deterministic (maybe I sound crazy now—and I probably am).

Uncleanness:
Could you point me to some articles or papers on the distinction between sin and uncleanness? Also, what are your thoughts on the transgression/sin distinction?

__

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/author/adamscottmiller/

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/letter-to-a-ces-student/

http://progressivebuddhism.blogspot.com/2010/07/root-all.html

http://theotherjournal.com/2011/10/18/philosophy-is-what-it-eats/

__

http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2009/07/speculative-grace-spinoza-immanence-affect.html?cid=6a00d8341d9f5853ef011572577742970b#comment-6a00d8341d9f5853ef011572577742970b

http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2009/08/speculative-grace-akrasia-sankhara-.html?cid=6a00d8341d9f5853ef0120a4e04972970b#comment-6a00d8341d9f5853ef0120a4e04972970b

http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2010/07/speculative-grace-compulsion-repetition.html

http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2010/06/speculative-grace-the-four-noble-truths.html

I thought his “Take No Thought” article was esp. Buddhist, but I couldn’t find an explicit reference (even in the Perspectives on Mormon Theology version, but after a quick peek I didn’t see any).

I’ll paste a list of Adam’s blog posts (in a separate comment, since they’ll probably get filtered) that are more explicit about his Buddhist interest – but they (typically) don’t explicitly link up with his Mormonism….