Nephi’s Story:

In 1 Nephi 4:10, Nephi starts his truth reasoning about what he should do with Laban after finding him passed out drunk as he planned to obtain the brass plates that he was commanded to retrieve.

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

At first, Nephi is locked into his rational thought based on the correct ideas that he had been taught and read. But then over the next few verses, Nephi’s truth foundation shifts to a much more pragmatic stance. In verses 12-13 we read,

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

Thus, Nephi has justified his current action for the benefit to which it will lead. He landed in pragmatic thinking¹.

What is pragmatism?

William James provides two precise quotes about pragmatists and intellectualists. I am not sure these are labels that people fit nicely into. However, understanding both paradigms can allow us to see Nephi’s time (the time of the Old Testament as well) as a living testimony of pragmatic truth. To understand pragmatism, we need to see it in contrast with intellectualism.

Pragmatists (experiential)

Pragmatism gets her general notion of truth as something essentially bound up with the way in which one moment in our experience may lead us towards other moments which it will be worthwhile to have been led to. Primarily, and on the common-sense level, the truth of a state of mind means this function of a leading that is worthwhile. When a moment in our experience, of any kind whatever, inspires us with a thought that is true, that means that sooner or later we dip by that thought’s guidance into the particulars of experience again and make advantageous connection with them.²

Intellectualists (rationalism and thought logic)

The great assumption of the intellectualists is that truth means essentially an inert static relation. When you’ve got your true idea of anything, there’s an end of the matter. You’re in possession; you know; you have fulfilled your thinking destiny. You are where you ought to be mentally; you have obeyed your categorical imperative; and nothing more need follow on that climax of your rational destiny. Epistemologically you are in stable equilibrium.³

Some of you may be asking, “Who is William James, and why does he matter for our conversation about Nephi?” I found William James’ writing after reading a few articles from David Paulsen. He is respected by David Paulsen and the larger philisophical community.

William James as understood by David Paulsen

David Paulsen made an impact in the philosophy community and strengthened the influence of the philosophical abilities of Brigham Young University (BYU) amongst other Christian philosophers. Many of those Christian philosophers shared their regards for him in a 2012 book title, ‘Mormonism at the Crossroads of Philosophy and Theology: Essays in Honor of David L. Paulsen’ which shares some great insights into David’s reasoning ability.

In 1999 he wrote an article in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy titled, ‘The God of Abraham, Issac, and (William) James’ that explores a famous Philosopher William James as a bit of ruse for talking about the teachings of Joseph Smith. David says as much in a 2004 Fair Mormon presentation titled The God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith.

“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James” was published in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy. Carl Mosser, in The New Mormon Challenge, in referring to this article tells his readers, don’t let the title fool you; “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James” is really a defense of the God of Joseph Smith. Which, indeed, it is.

I highlighted some of David’s quotes related to openness in one of my first posts.¹ Here I want to highlight a couple of his explanations of William James while we remember that he is using William James’ thoughts to convey the teachings of Joseph Smith and 1 Nephi 4.

So James goes on and suggests that if we think of God and human beings as socially related, as God responding to what we do and fail to do we have a much more pragmatically valuable understanding of God than if we think that any interaction between God and man is purely unilateral rather than reciprocal. James again suggests that the idea that God is timeless is pragmatically without value. James notes:

“all the categories of my sympathy are knit up . . . with things that have a history. . . . I have neither eyes nor ears nor heart nor mind for anything of an opposite description, and the stagnant felicity of the absolute’s own perfection moves me as little as I move it” (1977, 27).

Are living prophets pragmatic?

I appreciate William’s and David’s thoughts on pragmatism. We should leverage both Intellectualism and pragmatism as we work out our understanding of God and His laws. Nephi shows us this pattern. Living prophets exist to support this view of ’truth as something essentially bound up with the way in which one moment in our experience may lead us towards other moments which it will be worthwhile to have been led to.’ The prophets and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are excellent guides (pragmatism). This pragmatic theory of truth motivates the statement that we ‘should follow the living prophets.’ They are excellent guides in our lived lives towards Zion and the kingdom of God. We need living guides to build Zion. We need living guides that provide fruitful and workable ideas in our journey back to God through Christ.

• commentary
• openness
• truth