Title: Exploring Mormon Thought: Volume 4, God’s Plan to Heal Evil
Author: Blake T. Ostler
Publisher: Greg Kofford Books
Genre: Theology
Year Published: 2020
Binding: ebook
Reviewed by Daniel Evensen
I really don’t like this book. I found myself disagreeing with Blake Ostler nearly every step of the way. I find his Compassion Theory and his meandering philosophy generally vapid and a poor intellectual substitute for true religion. There is no way for me to compose an unbiased review of this book, as I cannot suppress my natural negative reactions while reading it.
That said, I do feel that I can make a few points of constructive criticism to express my disdain. Please note that I have not read the preceding 3 volumes, nor do I plan to. It is theoretically possible that Ostler addressed all these concerns in his prior volumes, though, having read this one, I really doubt it.
And thus, I present, the Seven Deadly Sins of a Poorly Written Work of LDS Scholarship – or Seven Ways to Alienate Your Readership:
1) Have no audience in mind when you write. Who is Ostler writing this for? He could be writing this for an audience of high-minded philosophers. But if that’s his target audience, why spend so much time telling us about the theories of Howard-Snyder, Alston, and Bergmann? Surely the scholarly would have heard of them. If the target audience is a more general LDS populace, then why start the book off with an intensely abstract discussion of the problem of believing in a God that coexists with evil? I’ve got no idea who Ostler has in mind as he writes, though I’m quite certain that it’s not me.
2) Don’t define critical terms. I’ll be fair – Ostler does give us some critical definitions. I now have at least a semblance of an understanding of what “genuine evil” is, and how it technically differs from “justified evil” and “genuine moral evil.” I don’t think I could describe the difference to you in five paragraphs or less, but I guess I know it well enough to graduate from the first chapter. Unfortunately, Ostler also makes very specific, calculated use of other technical terms, such as “open theist,” “skeptical theist,” “panentheist,” and so on without even an attempt at definition. And don’t get me started on extremely rare terms of clear foreign origin, such as “reductio,” “surd given,” “de re,” and “simpliciter,” which are thrust before the reader’s eyes with a flamboyant, almost mocking flare.
3) Nix the proofreader. What are paragraphs good for anyway? Instead of organizing his thoughts in a logically consistent manner, Ostler is all over the place, going from one subject to another within the confines of a single, long paragraph. I’d call this a stream-of-conscious work if I could only understand the technical terms he insists on using and reusing. Don’t get me started on the grammar, either. See, for example, this choice selection from the midst of a somewhat awkward description of the Calvinist view of the free will dilemma: “It is irrelevant to this view of ‘free will’ that there is a form of internal compulsion because we cannot resist God’s will and God forms our wants and desires.” Even within its run-on paragraph context, I’m not quite sure what the editor is even supposed to do with that.
4) Build a tower. Wouldn’t the average person expect a book on LDS philosophy (or “Mormon thought”) to contain frequent references to LDS scriptures and the words of modern-day prophets? Well, you won’t find that here. Instead, you’ll find a carefully constructed intellectual philosophical explanation of God, one that begins with certain fundamental assumptions, and then builds upwards, brick by brick, until it provides some sort of view over the whole of existence. I believe it was Truman Madsen who described such meticulously crafted philosophies as “intellectual Towers of Babel” – and, if you know where he uses that phrase, you know how I feel about it.
5) Bury the lede. Ostler finally gets to his point around Chapter 7, where he discusses a “Mormon Process Theodicy.” Never mind that the reader hasn’t the slightest clue what a “Process Theodicy” is, nor that a good portion of the presumed readership is offended by the constant use of “Mormon” as an adjective. Here in Chapter 7 we finally see the connection between the preceding 6 chapters of pie-in-the-sky theorizing and something resembling LDS theology. We’re told about the Pratt brothers and B. H. Roberts, about their views of D&C 88, about how their opinions seem to contradict each other until Ostler comes along and sets it all straight. But why isn’t this the first chapter? Why do we have to wade through stories of trials and tribulation, both real and theoretical, that seem to be designed to disrupt our faith in God? Why take the real meat of the book, the only real connection to anything the average reader is likely to care about, and hide it in the middle?
6) Hide your assumptions. In the beginning, Ostler paints the picture of God’s evil dilemma through three examples. In one, a three-year-old toddler is kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered. In another, a freak parked car accident kills a young girl and breaks a family into pieces. In the third, we are told about smallpox, an awful disease with billions of victims over time. Ostler then artfully stacks these three points up as evidence against God. God did not intervene in any of these three cases: how can we believe in Him if this is so? Is it that he did not want to intervene, that his potential intervention would have some sort of negative effect on mankind, or (the point Ostler is trying to make) that God’s ability to intervene is dependent on man’s ability to work together with him? My question here is why in the world we think the existence of evil creates a trial for God. Isn’t the existence of evil on this world supposed to test man, not God? Isn’t it at least possible that some of these maladies are just as much the fault of man as they are of God (for example: a society that sees sex as a commodity rather than an act of love; or our dependence on behemoth, dangerous machines for transportation; or our unwillingness to adhere to basic sanitary and safety measures to prevent the spread of devastating disease)? Is there, perhaps, a deeper motive or thought that causes Ostler to blame deity at the first sign of trouble?
7) Don’t help your reader. This is the most troubling point of all, especially for eBook readers. How are we supposed to engage with texts when terms are addressed once, promptly forgotten, and then brought back up dozens of pages later in different contexts? Can anybody follow logical thought that is undiagrammed – or, worse yet, demarcated with the most awkward of shorthand (Point Ca, Point Cb, Point Cc, etc)? Government employees the world round will particularly rejoice at the appearance of endless acronyms: “JG” for “Justifying Goods,” “UE” for “Unjustified Evil,” “ST” for Skeptical Theist,” etc. Better yet – introduce these acronyms and logical points to your readers, force them to take notes to outline your thinking – and then never refer to them again.
It will be no surprise to you that I do not recommend this book for anybody. I worry that my review is a bit harsh. However, as they say, if you plant ice, you’re going to harvest wind.
In the end, after all the philosophizing and theorizing is done, I am only left with Goethe’s famous lines: “Gib ungebändigt jene Triebe, das tiefe, schmerzenvolle Glück, des Hasses Kraft, die Macht der Liebe, gib meine Jugend mir zurück!”
I disagree quite strongly with this review. The phrases “reductio” and “open theist” are basic philosophical terms covered in philosophy 101. Obviously, this book is written for a well-educated Latter-day Saint who has familiarity withe subject. The reviewer does not demonstrate much familiarity with the subject at hand and only engages with the book on a stylistic and emotional level– not demonstrating any intellectual engagement. Simply asserting that evil is “a basic test for man” shows a lack of understanding of the problem of evil broadly, but also the implications for this question that have impacted many believers negatively. In short, this shallow, terse, and emotional does not do the work justice and the fact that the reviewer has not read previous volumes is responsible for their lack of understanding in some ways.
This review is simply not competent. All of the matters that it claims have not been addressed in fact were defined and addressed carefully. The entire Exploring Mormon Thought is addressed to a clear audience: those interested in Mormon philosophy and theology at a college level. The fact that the review lacked any background in philosophy or theology disqualifies him from having the necessary background to assess the book. Further, the complaint that the book fails to define key terms is false. The book carefully defined open theism on page 18 and again on p. 65. It defines skeptical theism on p.10 (Anyone who actually read the book would clearly be aware of that fact). The book defines panentheism in several places but very clearly on p. 83. The term surd given is defined in the very sentence it us used on p. 41. It is obvious that either Evensen read the book so poorly and haphazardly that he has no idea what he is talking about.
The sentence that Evensen cites as evidence of poor grammar is a perfectly understandable and well-constructed sentence structure. That Evensen obviously does not understand what he is reading does not change that fact.
Evensen also complains that this book does not adequately cite LDS scriptures. Anyone who actually read the book would know that a careful scriptural exegesis is in fact provided on pp. 113-120; 141-148. The complaint by Evensen that the claims are not adequately supported by LDS scriptures is not only false but a blatant misrepresentation. It is obvious that Evensen did not read the book in its entirety.
Evensen complains that the “lead” for the book is a Process Theodicy. Anyone who read the book (or actually understood what they read) would know that the actual focus of the book is a Relational Agape Theodicy that is explained for several chapters. Moreover, the :lead was not buried, the topic was prepared by prior discussion so that the reader could grasp what it is, how it differs form other approaches and why it is a more complete theodicy. That Evensen failed to understand the focus of the book is just baffling because it is very clear in the text.
The notion that the book hides its assumptions is just false. It clearly explains the assumptions of each approach. Evensen complains that the book focuses on particular cases and “stacks then against God”. The fact that Evensen appears to have no clue how actual arguments in the philosophy of religion are constructed again suggests that he lacks the basic acumen to review this book.
The truth is that Evensen is the least qualified reviewer possible. This review does not speak well for the Association of Mormon Letters.
I have no idea who the reviewer is, but he is clearly having us all on. No one could seriously write a sentence such as, “That said, I do feel that I can make a few points of constructive criticism to express my disdain.” It has to be a joke.
I am not sure who Daniel Evensen is or why he took it upon himself to write this review, but he is obviously not qualified to write it. He admits he hasn’t read any of Ostler’s other works and so I wonder why he decided to write this review and go around and post it on every site the book is featured on (Amazon, Good Reads, this Blog, and probably others I don’t know about.) Sounds like he has some personal vendetta. That being said of course he is entitled to his own opinion however uninformed and unjustified. Let us go through his points….
1) Audience: Ostler’s audience is clearly college level or above educated people that care about theology and philosophy from and LDS perspective.
2) Define critical terms. I admit Ostler doesn’t give the definition of terms over and over, but when he first introduces a new term he does define it and assumes the reader has the mental ability to retain that info. Also, if you are unfamiliar with a certain term because the author is using a more specialized vocabulary there is always a quick google search. No excuse these days. Maybe widen the old personal lexicon a bit.
3) Proofreading and sentence structure. Though I do admit Ostler does use long sentences sometimes they are never technically run-ons. I believe Ostler is a lawyer and so this seems to bleed over. He is technical and exact in his language. Actually a useful thing in philosophy since it is important to clearly convey complex ideas.
4) Build a tower…this the is the most revealing. Evensen claims that Ostler’s book should have “…contain(ed) frequent references to LDS scriptures and the words of modern-day prophets.” Which it does. He them says, “Well, you won’t find that here. Instead, you’ll find a carefully constructed intellectual philosophical explanation of God, one that begins with certain fundamental assumptions, and then builds upwards, brick by brick, until it provides some sort of view over the whole of existence.” This reveals two things. First, Evensen wanted this book to read like a general conference talk or something along those lines. 2) He, obviously, has never heard of analytical philosophy. Breaking things down the the fundamentals and then rebuilding them brick by brick is exactly what the point is. This is how careful thinkers analyze their beliefs and assumptions. The book has many many references to scriptures and has extensive footnotes. LDS thinkers and general authorities are cited, but most modern commentary from LDS prophets and apostles hasn’t addressed these issues as specifically as Ostler does. Ostler references Joseph Smith a whole lot, Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, Spencer W. Kimball, and others as relevant.
5) Bury the lede….I am not sure what Evensen is even claiming here. He claims the book takes until chapter 7 to get to the point. (Which is funny because Ostler’s preferred view actually starts in chapter 8) The book is setup to lay groundwork for the issue of the problem of evil, shows why it is an issue, then examines how other christian thinkers have approached the problem, then goes into the different possibilities within an LDS framework. So, it gets to the point the whole time. It seems that Evensen googled an article about ‘things to avoid when writing articles’ and tried to apply it to this book, but this one didn’t really apply so he forced it. Some ideas to take a whole book to explain…the big ideas. Not everything is able to be explained in an article.
6) Hide Your Assumptions. Ostler is very very clear about his assumptions. He lays them out very clearly in Chapter 8, but discusses them along the way on every point made. This is the part if the review that makes me think Evenson may have read through chapter 7, but never made it to the main arguments in the book in chapter 8 and beyond. Evensen states, “My question here is why in the world we think the existence of evil creates a trial for God. Isn’t the existence of evil on this world supposed to test man, not God? Isn’t it at least possible that some of these maladies are just as much the fault of man as they are of God (for example: a society that sees sex as a commodity rather than an act of love; or our dependence on behemoth, dangerous machines for transportation; or our unwillingness to adhere to basic sanitary and safety measures to prevent the spread of devastating disease)? Is there, perhaps, a deeper motive or thought that causes Ostler to blame deity at the first sign of trouble?” What on Earth is he referring to. Ostler never said anything like that in this book. This reveals to me that he really really didn’t read chapter 8 or beyond. His criticisms are for the theodicy reviewed in chapter 7 an ‘LDS Process Theodicy.’ Though Ostler states this as a ‘live option’ for LDS, it is clearly not his preferred view. I challenge Evenson to actually read chapters 8-12 and apologize for clearly not doing so before writing the review. How embarrassing for him.
7) Don’t help your reader…This one is almost humorous. Evensen claims Ostler defines terms and sometimes gives them acronyms then complains that he doesn’t define the terms every time they are brought up…that is called just being lazy. Plus, Ostler only uses the acronyms when doing logical syllogisms.
I will post my own review of Ostler’s book later. I do have some criticisms, but they are actually about the points made in the book.
This whole episode is comedic. The audacity of this reviewer is matched only by his lack of qualifications to even read that book, let alone set himself up as a relevant critic of it.
I have no idea how the game cricket works; I have put in 0 hours to understand the rules, the play, the history, and culture of the game. Were I to sit myself in the stands halfway through a game of cricket and start blabbering on about things that I thought they should change about the game, I would amount to nothing more than a perfect analogy for this reviewer and his impact on LDS philosophical theology. That wouldn’t even make me a critic. It would merely make me in the wrong place in the wrong time. I had to re-read Alexander Pope’s “Essay on Criticism” again for a good laugh at this review’s expense.
Oh, bless his heart… and mind (please!).
This book, and what Ostler is doing to explore tough theological issues in light of restoration doctrine have been instrumental in my journey of faith. I recommend them highly and often.
I also recommend these reviews if you’d like feedback from reviewers who’ve actually read the book:
https://www.associationmormonletters.org/reviews/current-reviews/ostler-exploring-mormon-thought-gods-plan-to-heal-evil-reviewed-by-jaxon-washburn/
https://www.millennialstar.org/book-review-exploring-mormon-thought-gods-plan-to-heal-evil/