What I’d tend to say characterizes this later theological period which is so interesting is the focus on the possibilities of Mormon theology and scripture rather than dogma. Second is a fairly sophisticated engagement with science, history and philosophy. While process theology and phenomenology/hermeneutics have tended to drive a lot of it there are interesting theological proper proposals. I’m here thinking of the adoption of Levinas’ work on ethics and the Other as a way to understand intelligence in Mormon philosophy, the emphasis on God as finite and open drawing out the implications, the strong emphasis on a Christology that emphasizes the shared ‘humanity’ of both God and mortals, the emphasis on a formalized theory of praxis that Faulconer and others have done, a thinking through the details of revelation, work on time and space required to reconcile Mormon notions of eternity with physics, and so forth. The most significant engaged with theological notion of the past 30 years is of course grace which has been dealt with in sustained ways from very different approaches. (It’s hard to imagine more difference than between say Adam Miller and Stephen Robinson for instance)

Beyond those works which line up more with traditional approaches to theology there’s the more hermeneutic approach to theology that I think you see in many works the Maxwell Institute has done. While I enjoy such works I’d tend to agree with you that they don’t always deal with broader issues. But I’m not sure they’re any less theological but perhaps are a rather unique transformation of theology into hermeneutic engagement with particular texts. Obviously Alma 32 is the most popular text of this sort but we’ve seen works dealing with Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, and even the idea of theological engagement as a kind of play.

What really characterizes this contemporary period is precisely the variety of approaches taken, often arising by engaging with broader disciplines from the academy and close readings of text making us of such theoretic apparatus.

Fortunately, it is a fair and readable book. But I have to think that if he had not been working with a very small window for writing and publishing the book, there would have been some improvements. Maybe a second edition in a few years will make that happen.

He also narrates a fascinating transition around the mid-20th century, with “a growing suspicion of theological innovation in favor of an emphasis on correct behavior.”

That’s interesting. I’m not sure I buy it. There’s certainly an emphasis on behavior but to a degree that was always true. In recent years you have works by say Jim Falconer arguing that Mormonism is more like Judaism with a focus on praxis rather than theory. While there’s a truth in that I confess I’m pretty skeptical of the general thesis.

My skepticism comes largely because I think the period of greatest theological innovation since the Nauvoo period was precisely the late 20th century particularly with the rise of apologetics. While many of the elements apologetics took hold of could be found in history (particular the era in the very early 20th century when Roberts, Widstoe and Talmage were pushing a scientifically informed approach to theology) it’s the era of the 1990’s that you really see a huge shift towards a scientifically sophisticated theology. We have the rise of the limited mesoAmerican geographic model and a shift away from naive hemispheric views of Nephites. Closely associated with this were much closer readings of the Book of Mormon from a theological perspective tying the text to various ancient theologies (often somewhat anachronistic to the text despite being ancient)

Where you see theological innovation being problematic tends to be where it is closely associated with political aims. Thus the Toscano’s theology can’t be separated from their attempts to reform church courts. Likewise their writings on deity along with many other figures from that time were wrapped up in debates about praying to Mother in Heaven along with giving women the priesthood offices. Again theology where the primary problem wasn’t the abstract theories so much as praxis and more importantly a grass roots push for change in practice independent of the Apostles.

Just curious if he addresses that set of criticisms.