William Chamberlin’s Personalism Theory

Posted on by

Kofford Books has “Discourses on Mormon Theology” on Kindle, and so am beginning to read its papers.  So far, it is an excellent book on the philosophy, history and theology of Mormonism.

I wanted to share my thoughts on one article by James McLachlan, professor of philosophy and religion at Western Carolina University.

. I was very impressed with McLachlan’s article on LDS scholar William Chamberlin’s Personalism Theory (I’ll give some details below)  I’ve emailed McLachlan and a few other LDS philosophers, and we’ve talked a little about it. According to McLachlan, The concept of Personalism is getting a lot of renewed interest right now by those in the philosophy field outside LDS church.

Basically, it says that reality and truth exist for two reasons: God sees us and we see Him. It comes down to there is only one truth: Relationship/Family. The highest existence occurs only when God and man come together in a perfect bond of love, a Godhead, a family. God is greater when man embraces God, and man is greater when God embraces man.
It fits very well in LDS theology on the eternal family, on the Doctrine of Christ (2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11, John 17), and gives us our highest reason to follow Christ.  We do not obey commandments because we fear God’s wrath. We follow Him because we want to morally become One with Him in all things.  In this, we keep our individuality, but also become freely united with God.  Christ becomes the model for us to follow into this relationship.
It balances free will and agency of both man and God. If God forced us to follow Him, it would be a Master/Slave relationship. If we were to seek to become gods of our own accord, we would be involved in Satan and Cain’s insurrection.Neither form works to establish truth or reality, as both require force on the other.  Instead, God invites us to join Him in the highest relationship, and we choose for ourselves how deeply we will join into that relationship (Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial).  Existence, truth and reality occur to the level of relationship we enter into. Though not stated in the article, this possibly suggests that sons of Perdition would then be in a non-existent state, refusing to enter into any relationship with God.
This concept of relationship also requires individuals to choose to freely enter into a loving relationship with those around her.  Each individual keeps her individuality, but freely surrenders the battle for individuality for the cause of the family and relationship.  McLachlan gives the example of Christ in Gethsemane, who asked for the cup to be removed from him, but “not my will, but thine, be done”.  This suggests that liberal and conservative Mormons can live together in Zion, if they freely choose to overlook the differences and focus on the common ties.  In doing so, they find a higher and greater existence together, while still retaining their own identities.  Perhaps it will be this understanding of doctrine that will lead Mormons into the true form of Zion and eternal bonds.
McLachlan gives a very detailed and excellent examination of the concept of Personalism, its history, and its relevance. The concept really opens up a new venue of study for me in regards to understanding Mormonism and our relationship to God and with one another.  It will have me looking for more papers on the concept.
This entry was posted in General by rameumptom. Bookmark the permalink.

About rameumptom

Gerald (Rameumptom) Smith is a student of the gospel. Joining the Church of Jesus Christ when he was 16, he served a mission in Santa Cruz Bolivia (1978=1980). He is married to Ramona, has 3 stepchildren and 7 grandchildren. Retired Air Force (Aim High!). He has been on the Internet since 1986 when only colleges and military were online. Gerald has defended the gospel since the 1980s, and was on the first Latter-Day Saint email lists, including the late Bill Hamblin's Morm-Ant. Gerald has worked with FairMormon, More Good Foundation, LDS.Net and other pro-LDS online groups. He has blogged on the scriptures for over a decade at his site: Joel's Monastery (joelsmonastery.blogspot.com). He has the following degrees: AAS Computer Management, BS Resource Mgmt, MA Teaching/History. Gerald was the leader for the Tuskegee Alabama group, prior to it becoming a branch. He opened the door for missionary work to African Americans in Montgomery Alabama in the 1980s. He's served in two bishoprics, stake clerk, high council, HP group leader and several other callings over the years. While on his mission, he served as a counselor in a branch Relief Society presidency.

9 thoughts on “William Chamberlin’s Personalism Theory”

  1. I am amused because I think this business of personalization and free decision to embrace those around us (foremost God) is the thing I keep going back to, when I talk about a future eternity where we all love one another, etc.

    A good friend of mine rolls her eyes when she reads me writing this (again) because she thinks it sounds goody goody. She also happens to know me in real life, and knows that I sometimes don’t act in mortality with the same universal love and acceptance that I project for my eternal self, she experiences cognitive dissonance when she reads my constant writing about eternal and universal love.

    I don’t know that children of perdition fail to exist merely because they choose to not be in a relationship with God. In an odd way, they are shaped by this refusal to relate to God, as the folks in Ionesco’s Rhinosceros who rejected became anti-rhinos and therefore effectively rhinos.

  2. Coercion of any kind is not consistent with love, but some forget that trying to force others to adopt an opinion so we can feel more comfortable involves coercion. It is legitimate to state what we believe and the consequences we believe might follow from some behaviors. It is also legitimate to avoid those whose behavior threatens us. Allowing others to commit sin without warning them is not loving. God reaches out to us through revelation and scripture and he warns of behaviors that will cause dissonance and separation.

  3. Personalism sounds very interesting. Thanks for the introduction. Is it trying to say that the “free will” part of the individual what makes that person a person? A person with no free will would not be a person, but rather an appendage to some other person or force. A “thing to act” vs. a “thing to be acted upon.” Is that why you say that the Sons of Perdition don’t exist?

  4. Nate, the thought on SoP is my own. It may or may not apply.

    We become persons not necessarily from what we are, but by how we relate to others in the world around us, as well as relate to God. A child left on her own will not survive long. It is the relating with others that helps ensure survival and existence.

    We see in our own world that when people work together, they can accomplish more through synergy. The cooperation we see in many companies and between groups, allows for the invention and development we have today. There are fewer poor people on earth today than in the past, because people cooperate in business and development.

    That same sense of community,expanded and invigorated, is what will create Zion.

  6. That’s a good book although it tends to introduce topics rather than do justice to them. (Not that a collection of individual short papers could do anything but that)

    I confess I have my problems with Chamberlin and that particular way of thinking in early 20th century American philosophy. I’m much more on the pragmatic side of things rather than the Hegelian side. It is interesting how many similar ideas were in the air at the time. (Buber’s I-thou vs I-it or even later Heidegger’s authentic & inauthentic modes of being are pretty similar. Arguably even Wittgenstein’s atomic facts get at this.)

Comments are closed.