posted
I don't claim to be an expert on Mormonism. I know the history of it and I've done a fair bit of reading, but nothing close to what I've done with traditional Christianity. However, I would like to ask the Mormons on our board if the following youtube video is actually what Mormons believe:
If it is true, please explain the context. I've seen this video several times and I have been told numerous times that it really is what traditional Mormonism believes.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a Mormon but most of the weirder stuff in that is either folk doctrine which is not canon but also not officially rejected, or represents material taught by early church leaders but which has been rejected by the church since then.
A lot of the stuff about space/stars/planets/gods is from early leaders and some of it is believed by modern Mormons but not something you'd generally learn in Sunday school these days.
The war in heaven thing is real. The one third/two thirds thing is real. The dark skin stuff was another early prophet thing, repudiated by more recent leaders.
The Nephite/Lamanite stuff is more or less what is taught now, without the repeated mention of everyone's skin color. Also the claim about "the Americas" has softened substantially. Originally it was commonly believed that the Native Americans of North America were descendants of the Lamanites.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Before addressing the particulars, I'd hope you'd consider two important principles in the background of everything this video is claiming.
1: This video is from the God Makers. It's a video that is expressly designed not to inform people about Mormonism so they can make a better judgement for themselves, rather to steer them into either leaving it, or never joining. Information is secondary to that effort. Accuracy isn't even third.
2: It makes no distinction between speculation and accepted doctrine. Everything is presented as if that's what Mormons believe and actively teach. The stuff we actually do believe is indistinguishable from the stuff that we don't actually answer. For example, imagine somebody presenting Christianity and saying Christians believe that God and Mary are the parents of Jesus, and that Christians believe God came down and had physical sex with Mary and took her virginity, and got her pregnant. (Note: I wrote this before seeing the video actually states Mormons believe this, they don't.)
I am positive there are Christian ministers who have believed that physical sex was involved, and all Christians agree that Mary was pregnant by God, and not by her husband. But to present that as a standard doctrine is misleading. We do not actually know how Mary came to be pregnant by God. I don't think God is limited by sex, we're able to get a woman pregnant without her actually having sex. I would think God is at least as capable as we are.
Anyway, to the video.
We believe that things on Earth are based on how they exist in heaven. That is, our world is patterned after it to some extent. So God has children, raises them, and teaches them, just as a parent would here. We know that sex is involved in reproduction here on Earth. It might follow that sex is unchanged in heaven, and is also how God created us. But that is not taught, we don't know.
The depiction of God creating the Earth for men to be tested on, and the dual plans of Christ and Satan are just at titch off. God's original plan was to give men their agency, Christ simply supported God in that decision. Christ was selected to fill the savior's role, but no vote was taken on the matter, God simply decided.
The doctrine that fence sitters were born black has been taught by some leaders of the church. That can't be denied. But I think it's a chicken/egg scenario. Rather the church at the time of Brigham Young's tenure had stopped giving black people the priesthood, so to justify this, the idea that black people were cursed because they were Cain's descendents, or because they had been neutral in heaven was propagated so that people went along with the ban. False doctrine begets false doctrine in my mind. And I don't say that lightly. I still struggle with that episode of God's church's history. As evidence it is no longer taught, consider this article. I think Apostle McConkie's word's at the end of the priesthood ban are instructive,
"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding."
You should be made aware that Pres. McConkie was one of the major believers that the ban against priesthood ordination for blacks was God's will, even though he personally (I've seen no evidence of this, he was a great man) did not hate black people.
The belief that people born in the church or in America were the most righteous in the pre-existance has definitely been pervasive in the church, but it's not official doctrine, nor does it hold up to a little scrutiny. For one thing virtually every single prophet prior to Joseph Smith, including Jesus was not born with what we would call "white skin". The Book of Mormon *does* discuss two factions of people in its narrative, one god fearing and civil, the other carnal and evil, and that God gave the latter a darker skin so as to make them identifiable to the people of the civil faction. People have extrapolated from that that anybody with dark skin is somehow spiritually inferior to those with white skin, though the Book of Mormon specifically says regarding the unequal way men treat each other,
"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (emphasis mine)
It is absolutely true that Brigham Young taught that God and Adam were the same being. This belief has been clarified as false by subsequent leaders. President Young was mistaken in his understanding of the creative events that lead to the forming of the world. It is taught currently that Adam as a spirit took an active role in collaborating with God and Christ to actually form this world. I do not believe this is taught outside of Mormonism.
Orson Pratt may have taught what the video claims he did, but I have *never* heard those views articulated in church. I don't think they are held by even a tiny minority of the church. I have never heard that Joseph Smith claimed to be descended from Jesus. Jesus' marital status or paternal status on Earth are both open questions as far as I know in Mormonism. We have not answered them.
As Matt mentioned, initially it was believed in the church (thought note stated in scripture) that all Native Americans were descended from the people discussed in the Book of Mormon. The church has since revised that statement to read that the people of the Book of Mormon were one of the ancestral groups of the people that have come to populate North and South America. In much the same way, it was initially believed that the scope of the Book of Mormon must have covered all of the American continents. But at present Mormon archeology seems to be moving towards the narrative that things happened in a much smaller geographic area.
His brief description of how the Book of Mormon came to be, and Joseph Smith's restoration of the church were pretty accurate. Mormons however are not trying to prove themselves worthy to become transformed into Gods, rather it is in our natures to become like God, much like a baby grows into an adult, and so a combination of our nature, and the choices we make either fosters that outcome, or closes that possibility.
The image of Joseph Smith, Jesus, and God all sitting at the same bench is not something I would say is correct. We do believe that throughout history there have been what are called dispensations of the gospel. For example Moses headed a dispensation, as did Abraham, and in our day Joseph Smith has. So people belonging to a specific gospel dispensation will probably have that head as one of the people witnessing when judgement day comes. There is no evidence that people in heaven all have blond hair, that is a fabrication of the video.
But by no means is Joseph Smith co-equal with Christ or God as the video claims. Our scriptures specifically claim that Joseph Smith has done more for the salvation than any other man *save* Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith did not write that passage, rather John Taylor, who was with him when he died wrote it in his eulogy of him, and it was canonized. The video I am sure is aware of this, and doesn't wish to present the nuanced version. We do not believe that Joseph Smith's blood somehow enables us to become like God. We do believe that God in some sense allowed him to be killed so that his blood would serve as a testament of his words, much like other prophets have been permitted to be murdered for that same purpose.
I hope that answers some of your questions, feel free to continue asking them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks BB for that perspective. It's very interesting to hear an actual Mormon's point of view on the matter.
I'd also like to ask how Mormons feel about other religions. Does the Mormon church believe that if you aren't a Mormon, you'll go to Hell? Do they believe in Hell at all? How's that work, exactly? Will Christians (Catholics, Southern Babtists, etc.) go to Hell simply for believing in a different version of Christianity? What do Mormons think about the Jews? What about Atheists?
Thanks for the feedback. And these questions are open for anyone to chime in on. I'd like to hear a wide assortment of perspectives, even if you aren't mormon.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff: Mormons believe everybody must accept Christ and his role as their savior if they are to be comfortable living with God in the next life. That conversion does not necessarily need to take place in mortality, though we believe we should be anxiously engaged in spreading the good word so as to promote the happiness of others.
People who do not convert in this life will be given some opportunity in the next life to have the gospel explained to them, and be able to make a fair choice.
Hell is better understood within Mormonism as a state of existence. We regularly call this world a Telestial Kingdom which is essentially what hell is. Essentially if you are OK living at this standard of existence, then you will find hell a perfectly livable place, maybe even much better than here. There is no physical death, sickness, disease, etc. But it's not as happy a place as heaven, which is a place people who actually want to live with God go to. Mormonism describes that were somebody who is not willing to live God's commandments were forced into heaven, they would prefer the fires of hell (so to speak) to the feelings they would have in the perfection of heaven.
I hope that answers your questions. Essentially, you are the judge of where you would feel comfortable ending up.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The church has since revised that statement to read that the people of the Book of Mormon were one of the ancestral groups of the people that have come to populate North and South America.
I'm always wondered where did Mormon's think these people went. Did they all die out without leaving any descendents?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The church has since revised that statement to read that the people of the Book of Mormon were one of the ancestral groups of the people that have come to populate North and South America.
I'm always wondered where did Mormon's think these people went. Did they all die out without leaving any descendents?
No. Plenty of Mormon archeologists have tried to figure that one out. But the BOM does not state that everybody died.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff: I am also a Mormon and wanted to add a few things to what has already been said. In regards to how we feel about other religions, let me first quote Joseph Smith: "“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may.”
God is not partial to any human being. We seek truth wherever it can be found. I have met some pretty amazing people in my life from a variety of religions, as well as pagans, atheists and everyone in between. I have learned things from different people. God works to bring about good things in this world through whoever is willing.
While we have not been told the specifics of many notable figures throughout history, Mormons do believe that God has moved through people such as inspiring the invention of the printing press, or the invention of the Internet, or through people like Mother Teresa, or through the people that supported the civil rights movements.
In other words, Mormons aren't any better than non-Mormons. A non-Mormon doesn't have any less chance of getting to heaven than a Mormon. Like BlackBlade said, it comes down to what each individual really desires in their heart of hearts. Do they desire God? Do they desire to live with people who have learned to love and be happy? Are they willing to make sacrifices to stand up for what is right? Or, do they prefer things less than this? We believe the LDS church to be God's official organization on the earth for spreading saving doctrines, performing necessary saving ordinances, providing fellowship, and preparing the world for the return of Christ eventually. Not everyone that will be saved with God will have become a Mormon in this life. Not everyone who was a Mormon will be saved with God.
God is perfectly just. In the end, whether in this life or the next, everyone who truly desires to be with God will be there. They will have learned who Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are and will accept them if they want to. For example, I believe there are atheists who truly desire truth and stand by their beliefs because they believe them to be true, but who would accept God should they receive personal knowledge, in this life or the next, that God is real and is good. There are also other atheists who probably would not accept God should they become aware of Him, for selfish or proud or other reasons.
The real test for each of us, Mormons believe, is whether or not you are willing to accept and follow truth when you gain a personal knowledge of it. When you know for yourself that God has spoken to you, the truth of your desires will come out. Will you hunger to follow that truth, whatever the effort, or will you prefer to follow other things as a higher priority than God?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm always wondered where did Mormon's think these people went. Did they all die out without leaving any descendents?
This article by a Mormon geneticist argues that a small group might have left no detectable genetic legacy, especially since we don't actually know what genetic profile we're looking for.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm finding the responses in this thread fascinating and very educational. For whatever reason(s), I've found it quite difficult to find objective discussions of actual Mormon theology. You either find the Mormon-haters (like the group/people who created this video), or you find believers who don't want to discuss their beliefs because of (well-founded) fears of persecution. (Or, the third choice, which is all too common across every religion in America: You get the people who superficially believe what they believe because that's what their parents and/or social group believe, but can't really explain why or provide any logical reasoning for their beliefs.)
From a protestant Christian perspective (in other words: mine), it seems to me that the primary difference between what I'll call "mainstream Christianity" and Mormonism is entirely centered around the validity of the revelation Joseph Smith had when he transcribed/dictated The Book of Mormon. (I apologize if not including the LDS church in the "mainstream" category is offensive to Mormons... I haven't really ever been able to get a straight answer on whether the church considers itself to be part of "mainstream Christianity" or not)
If Smith's experience with the golden plates of Mormon/Moroni was valid, then the teachings of the book are equally valid. If it wasn't, then they're basically an elaborate tale spun by a man. And, from what I've seen in my (admittedly limited) research, the existence of the golden plates is basically a matter of faith. Smith had 11 witnesses that vouched for the authenticity of the plates, but all of them were either family or close associates, so objective doubt can be cast over whether the witnesses really saw what they claimed to see.
Ultimately, as with many of the miracles in the Bible itself, it's impossible to conclusively prove the authenticity of the miracle/gift of the plates from Moroni... it's a statement of faith. And if Joseph Smith received the revelation of the Book of Mormon, then there's no reason to doubt that he also received the divine inspiration to compose the documents that became the Pearl of Great Price and a portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. (And, essentially, there's no reason to doubt that following Presidents of the Church didn't also receive divine inspiration to clarify and expand the D&C. I realize this is probably a gross oversimplification, but... well, I guess I'm trying to simplify by making broadly generalized statements that certain key points of dogma can only be accepted as faith, and that faith is the base upon which other beliefs can be built.)
A second criticism frequently leveled at Mormons, that of the actively changing canon/dogma, is not at all unique to Mormon theology. In fact, this is a dogma that is shared with Catholicism. At any time, a Pope can make a proclamation "ex cathedra," and it automatically becomes dogmatic belief for Catholics. (The most recent major use of this power was in 1950 to declare the Assumption of Mary as part of Catholic dogma.) Ecumenical councils, such as Vatican II, can change Catholic dogma, as well.
And on top of that, even the foundational Protestant belief of "sola scriptura" (the belief that only the Bible can provide dogmatic principles) does not (and should not, IMO) preclude protestants from seeking a greater understanding of God, his words to us, and how he wants us to interact with the world around us. This is not, by a strict definition, dogmatic belief or canon law, but it is, at the end of the day, what is most important for Christians: living your life as unto Christ.
One of the reasons I think ignorant, inflammatory videos like this are made to attack Mormon beliefs is because some of their core beliefs seem quite different to what other Christians have been taught their whole lives. It's easy to point a finger and derisively yell, "I weren't conceived with no alien sex!!" People who would say and do things like that, however, don't realize that in the early years following Jesus' life on Earth, the concept of partaking in "the body and blood of Christ" was equally foreign to the predominant Jewish and Roman religious beliefs at the time (and probably far more repulsive, as they considered it a form of cannibalism). Intolerance abounds where ignorance is found, and videos like this are a prime example.
(I would love to hear whether any of the Mormon believers on this board agree or disagree with my assessments, by the way. I freely admit that my statements are simply my opinion, and are based on decidedly incomplete facts about the LDS Church and Mormonism.)
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: A second criticism frequently leveled at Mormons, that of the actively changing canon/dogma, is not at all unique to Mormon theology. In fact, this is a dogma that is shared with Catholicism. At any time, a Pope can make a proclamation "ex cathedra," and it automatically becomes dogmatic belief for Catholics. (The most recent major use of this power was in 1950 to declare the Assumption of Mary as part of Catholic dogma.) Ecumenical councils, such as Vatican II, can change Catholic dogma, as well.
Not exactly. And by "most recent", you also mean "second". Pretty much nothing happens "automatically" in Catholicism. Even ex cathedra statements are meant to reflect the belief of the whole Church, not to radically change it. Sometimes, I wish it were that simple; most of the time, I am glad it isn't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not exactly. And by "most recent", you also mean "second". Pretty much nothing happens "automatically" in Catholicism. Even ex cathedra statements are meant to reflect the belief of the whole Church, not to radically change it. Sometimes, I wish it were that simple; most of the time, I am glad it isn't.
Of course, you're correct, kmbboots. I was probably generalizing too broadly. As I understand it, an ex cathedra proclamation has always been well-vetted theologically, and it is always followed by the titular "assent of the Church" after the proclamation is made. The "assent" is basically a rubber-stamp in modern times, though, much like (as I understand it) proclamations made by the President of the LDS Church are also "formally accepted" by the church membership after they are made.
I do disagree that radical changes are not introduced into Catholic dogma, though. Perhaps it has never been done through the ex cathedra method, but Vatican II, for example, introduced many changes that, at the time, were considered quite radical.
I didn't realize there had been an ex cathedra pronouncement since the Assumption of Mary... what was it? (I'm honestly asking, not trying to be facetious.)
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't really ever been able to get a straight answer on whether the church considers itself to be part of "mainstream Christianity"
I think the LDS church considers itself mainstream Christianity the same way that Fox News considers itself mainstream media.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and it was before the proclamation about the Assumption. Also, some consider that canonization is also infallible. But other than that, those are the only two.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Thanks BB for that perspective. It's very interesting to hear an actual Mormon's point of view on the matter.
I'd also like to ask how Mormons feel about other religions. Does the Mormon church believe that if you aren't a Mormon, you'll go to Hell? Do they believe in Hell at all? How's that work, exactly? Will Christians (Catholics, Southern Babtists, etc.) go to Hell simply for believing in a different version of Christianity? What do Mormons think about the Jews? What about Atheists?
Thanks for the feedback. And these questions are open for anyone to chime in on. I'd like to hear a wide assortment of perspectives, even if you aren't mormon.
Mormons tend to approach questions about different churches from the perspective of there being one true church instituted by God from the very beginning, and either growing or "dying out" during the various periods of history and having to be reinstituted. The Mormons believe the church to be "restored" rather than newly created by Joseph Smith, with the same core doctrine, practices, and authority of the original church and its iterations through the ages.
We approach other faiths through this lens: other churches may have many true beliefs and do much good, but they do not have everything necessary to bring about the salvation of humankind the way the true church--by default--does. As we believe this is the specific purpose of having a church, this distinction matters quite a bit to us. It's why the Mormons are very missionary-focused, because we believe everybody on the earth present and past needs what the true church provides.
That said, the Mormon church in general does not disparage other faiths and beliefs and actively strives to remind its members to act this way toward others.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It was about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and it was before the proclamation about the Assumption. Also, some consider that canonization is also infallible. But other than that, those are the only two.
Ah, ok, I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks for that clarification!
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
It recognizes that it's distinct in some ways from what others would call mainstream news/Christianity, but only by being better and more correct.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I see how the comparison would be unflattering if you don't like Fox News. But then, I think any view of a religion from the outside is unflattering. If you don't believe the same things, you sort of automatically believe there's a certain amount of delusion going on. I don't think the comparison was meant to paint the LDS church in an unflattering light compared to other churches, just to reflect the fact that the LDS church considers itself more correct and complete than other religions, in a way that is somewhat distinct from the ecumenical community that some other denominations feel included in.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the context of Hatrack, however, Fox News is quite a fashionable target of derision, and in the context of discussing the Mormon church, it's a common (if tired) poke at the church to say we consider ourselves a little superior to others. I was hoping Matt was saying something deeper than just yanking the same chain.
I honestly don't think much about how the LDS church stacks up with other churches. I view some in a very favorable light myself, and some in a less favorable light, but not simply based on their views toward my church. As far as being part of "mainstream" Christianity, I don't think we are and I don't think we care that much if we're viewed as such or not from a purely religious standpoint. As far as a PR standpoint, sure. We want a spot at the table in some conversations like charitable service, policy toward religion, and other things.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean it to be unflattering. Fox News considers itself better/more correct than "mainstream media" while ignoring/pretending that it is actually part of the mainstream by most reasonable definitions.
The only reason I even invoked Fox News was the "mainstream" connection. I find Fox News abhorrent. I do not find the LDS church abhorrent. I spent several hours this weekend driving to/from a baptism, have served as a scout leader (and a number of other non-callings), and the rest of my immediate family are all faithful members of the church.
And yes, LDS church members, from my experience, tend to view the church as superior to all those other churches. It's part of the foundation story of the Church and "one true church" is a staple of the ever-present Mormon testimony.
It's not unique to the LDS church - everyone is in a church that they think is the most right - but it is pretty particular to the LDS church to be so constantly explicit about it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is that big ecumenical fray here in America that Mormons just aren't part of. I've always figured that it was mostly because of our differing doctrine; perhaps it's partly because of the perception that Mormons think their church superior? I never got that impression when I was living in Minnesota, where the church is just one more church building among many. But having lived in areas where wards are measured in blocks, not counties, for long enough now, I have more of a skewed vision of what the mainstream is, because by and large my church is the mainstream, and much of the criticism comes from those who find themselves in the minority.
I hope the church doesn't just come off as smugly superior. It is definitely a staple of a testimony to call the church the true church, and the LDS don't make any bones about that. And so I guess it can sound like Mormons are constantly comparing our church favorably to other churches. To me, it's less about one being superior to the other, though. The comparison is a little more matter-of-fact. I know this is the church that has all I need to return with my family to God. That is what I want, and this is the only church where it exists. Yes, the comparison is implicit in that kind of statement, but it's not really a "look how much better we are than our neighbors" comparison, but a "I have all I need here, and I couldn't find what I was missing anywhere else."
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope the church doesn't just come off as smugly superior.
It's not necessarily smug. It's more like a sense of well-justified confidence. Like how Michael Phelps is of the opinion that he's a better swimmer than other people. The LDS idea of "knowing" (yes, I have to use scare quotes there) things of spiritual import allows for a person to claim superiority without it being smug or boastful from their perspective.
When I was growing up in San Diego a very earnest little Mormon girl once told me "we're not better, we're just more specialer." I think that capture the impression that's made, at least to the more sympathetic outsiders like myself.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
AFAIK (and discussed in other threads), the biggest technical distinction is the rejection of the Nicene Creed. Almost all Christian churches adhere to the Nicene Creed and have it as their foundational doctrine statement (paraphrased or verbatim). Part of the Nicene Creed is belief in (and, by implication, membership of) the holy catholic church. Protestant churches obviously don't place themselves under the authority of Rome (or rather, they reject the legitimacy of the Vatican), but still consider themselves to be part of the same church. So for most Christians, to be qualified as "Christian" you have to at least have the Nicene Creed at the core of your beliefs. The Mormons reject it, which is why they're often considered another religion. (albeit one that shares a lot of similarities with Christianity...)
A question of my own: reading through some of the explanations of Mormon theology in this thread (especially re: soul building and hell), I was once again struck by how similar Mormon theology is to the Irenaen tradition (particularly with respect to C.S. Lewis)... to the point that, when researching various aspects of Mormon theology, I was able to accurately predict their beliefs on various topics. This is somewhat comforting to me, because IMO one of the biggest flaws of mainstream Christianity is their acceptance of St. Augustine's teachings and their rejection/ignorance of St. Irenaeus. (I think Irenaeus's arguments were far more logical) Do you think Joseph Smith and the early church leaders were influenced by Irenaeus and his followers?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who was Irenaeus and what did he say? Also, thanks for the great feedback so far guys. I am definitely learning quite a bit.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Who was Irenaeus and what did he say? Also, thanks for the great feedback so far guys. I am definitely learning quite a bit.
I'll forewarn you: I'm no theologian, and I'm not sure how much of what I'm about to write is more of "what people who lived thousands of years after Irenaeus thought he said/wished he said/interpreted him as saying" versus "what Irenaeus actually said." Also, my own understanding of theology and philosophy is limited so take what I say with a heavy grain of salt.
St. Irenaeus was an early church leader who was born in the middle of the second century. You've probably seen his philosophy referred to as the Irenaen Theodicy, which I consider somewhat of a misnomer. While it does involve the problem of pain*, it uses the existence of pain as the foundation for a philosophy rather than treating it as a problem that needs solving or explaining.
So...
In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, and all the angels, and all the creatures that walk upon the Earth and swim in it's oceans and fly in the air. But there was still something missing, for God desired to create beings like himself - beings who could think and explore and discover, beings who could love and befriend and be in relationship with each other and himself.
Perhaps the angels were his first attempt at this - but if you make a creature designed to love you and worship you and obey you, is it really love or worship or obedience? Are they really happy, if they have no choice in the matter? This wouldn't do. He wanted more than just servants or pets - he wanted people who could perhaps be his equals, who could experience all that there was and choose to love him (or reject him ) freely. People with souls.
You can't truly create a soul - because if you programmed someone with all the experiences that made them think the way they do, love the way they do, create the way the do, journey the way they do, would they really be a person? Or just a complex robot in the shape of a person? No, at most he could give people a "blank slate" - the souls had to create themselves.
He created the world (perhaps the first of many) and made it unpredictable and dangerous, full of beauty and terror and love and hatred and great rolling planes and jagged mountains, full of all the hardship and challenges and heartbreak and wonder needed to turn a blank slate into a soul. He created man in his image. He gave man free agency and gifted him with the ability to be co-creators - inventers, thinkers, namers.
At first, he kept mankind in a safe and protected place, and lived amoung us and taught us the things we need to know to survive and live and coexist, until we grew to the point where we no longer desired his protection and defied him. So he withdrew his protection and let us loose on the world he created.
But men became extremely wicked, and lost their way. So he spoke to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, he created a holy people to set the example of how to live righteously. He spoke through the prophets and even sent his own son, Jesus, to live a perfect life and teach and set an example for all the world, and to die and take upon himself all the sins of the world.
At the end of time, all the souls God created will have had their journey through this world (and perhaps many more worlds after this one) and will have grown enough in wisdom and understanding to be transformed into the likeness of God as well as his image. They will be gathered into Heaven with God, to live and commune with him forever. Hell exists as an extension of God's mercy - those who choose to reject God's love can go and live apart from him, perhaps in a creation of their own, or perhaps simply in a place free of his presence.
Some Irenaens (like Lewis) are universalists - they believe that, though free will is absolute, God's love is so strong and enduring that in the end everyone will eventually choose to love him and join him in heaven. Others believe that souls are given the choice to unmake themselves, and perhaps "hell" is simply for souls who (for whatever reason) choose not to exist anymore.
I've always admired this philosophy because it seems so more more deep and nuanced and fundamentally loving than St. Augustine's theodicy which is, unfortunately, taught by the vast majority of Christian churches. St. Augustine more or less makes God out to be a vindictive asshole - and it's always made me wonder, "do I really want to spend eternity with someone like that?"
*C.S. Lewis wrote a terrific book by that very title that is more or less a layman's explanation of Irenaen Theodicy. Also see The Great Divorce for his view on Heaven and Hell.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I tend to agree. In fact, I was just browsing local private schools to do some research, and I found one Christian school that required parents to accept their religious creed, which included the statement that the Bible is the final, only, and infallible word of God. On that note alone, I am not sure they would let my son, a Mormon, into their school.
Even though I have accepted Christ as my Savior and everything else on their creed. The fact that I believe God has said more than just what is in the Bible, and that fact that I believe the Bible to not be absolutely perfect (in that it has been subject to tampering hands over the centuries), disqualifies me from saying I am a true Christian in many Christian circles. Even though I love the Bible, have read the entire thing, and find spiritual upliftment in it.
Not to mention I have a deep love for Christ that influences multiple daily thoughts or behaviors for me every day.
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am often sad that I have to expect some resistance when I want to share my love of Christ with a "mainstream" Christian. For me, it mostly translates into wanting to fellowship with other Christians, despite some differing beliefs, only to be told my love for Christ "doesn't count." To be clear, I am speaking about my personal experiences throughout life, not stating this as a common phenomenon for everyone. Also, I am not saying this is always the case. I have met many Christians who really don't care that my doctrine is different in certain ways. They take my word when I say my entire spiritual life revolves around Christ.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I tend to agree. In fact, I was just browsing local private schools to do some research, and I found one Christian school that required parents to accept their religious creed, which included the statement that the Bible is the final, only, and infallible word of God. On that note alone, I am not sure they would let my son, a Mormon, into their school.
If it makes you feel any better, it was probably written that way to keep out Catholics. The fact that it also bars Mormons is just a side-effect.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I would say that the first part of this is true. The biggest obstacle is the non-belief in the Trinitarian nature of God. One God in three persons.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I think it's a combination of having a scriptural canon that includes the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants (and is open to new scripture when it comes), plus the non-acceptance of the Nicene Creed with a belief in the holy trinity as three separate beings. Those are what I hear cited the most. Mormons do have a lot of beliefs about the nature of God that are pretty radical to the Christianity of the past millennium or two.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian.
I think that would depend on how you define "Christian." Many Christians would say that you couldn't possibly be Christian and believe that people have souls uncreated by God and are intended to become gods themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
You believe that God is a corporeal being who used to be just like us, is not the Prime Mover, and has some pretty strict limitations.
That's just not God to most Christians.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do you think Joseph Smith and the early church leaders were influenced by Irenaeus and his followers?
I think it's extremely unlikely that any of the founding leaders of the LDS church were influenced, even indirectly, by Irenaes or his followers. Joseph Smith had very little religious training of any kind, outside of New England camp meetings. Other early leaders like Parley Pratt, Oliver Cowdrey, and David Whitmer were similarly unschooled in theology. The closest you come to formalized training is Sidney Rigdon who served as Joseph Smith's closest counselor for several years from 1831-1837 (the church was officially founded in 1830, although informal meetings had been occurring since around 1827). Sidney had (IIRC) certified as a Methodist minister and led a Campbellite congregation of 100-200 people in Ohio before joining the LDS church (and bringing much of his congregation with him). As I recall he had very little formal religious training, being primarily self-taught, and I doubt he would have had any exposure to Irenaes' ideas.
You're not wrong, though, about there being a strong strain of Irenaean theodicy in LDS doctrine, especially as it was popularized by C.S. Lewis. You'll frequently hear quotes like the ones following from Lewis in talks by LDS church authorities. So much so, in fact, that he's sometimes jokingly referred to as the 13th apostle.*
quote:It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.
quote:For God is not merely mending, not simply restoring a status quo. Redeemed humanity is to be something more glorious than unfallen humanity would have been, more glorious than any unfallen race now is. . . . And this super-added glory will, with true vicariousness, exalt all creatures.
*The LDS church is led in part by a council of 12 apostles.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
LDS doctrine means something different by the word "God" than what is meant by pretty much every other group that considers itself Christian. Also Judaism and Islam. It's not a difference in belief about the character of God, or the actions of God, or the opinions of God, which definitely vary a lot among different denominations. It's a difference in belief about the being of God, even the definition of the word "God."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
You believe that God is a corporeal being who used to be just like us, is not the Prime Mover, and has some pretty strict limitations.
That's just not God to most Christians.
. . . And the Westboro Baptist Church believes in a God who punishes us (with floods, earthquakes, etc) for promoting civil rights.
. . . And the Catholic church believes in a God who portions out his power to saintly humans, making them demi-Gods in their own right.
. . . And the Lutherans and Southern Baptists believe that you can be saved without any real piety.
. . . And the fundies believe that science isn't real.
Most Christian faiths have some skewed beliefs that are pretty much downright blasphemy to the rest of "mainstream Christianity".
To say that the LDS church is closer to the Muslim faith belies a lack of understanding of one or both.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aros, I submit that you not only do those faiths but your own a disservice by a) misstating their positions; and b) not recognizing the fundamental and severe doctrinal distinctions between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, distinctions that are considerably more profound than "science isn't real."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: To say that the LDS church is closer to the Muslim faith belies a lack of understanding of one or both.
Actually, Squick said that the rest of Christianity is closer to the Muslim faith than to the LDS on this point, not that the LDS church was closer to Islam.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I have simplified the beliefs of other faiths. But I am no more guilty of this than nearly everyone else in this thread. And I didn't misrepresent them. You're deflecting.
My point isn't that there aren't profound doctrinal differences between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity. There ARE -- I'm quick to concede that point. Rather, I would argue that there are just as many fundamental doctrinal distinctions among the rest of Christianity.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aros, I get the impression you think I'm trying to insult the LDS religion. I'm not. I'm pointing out a fundamental difference between it and nearly all other Christian religions (and Islam, and Judaism).
I suspect your anger over my perceived insult may be coloring your reading of my posts.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You point out a doctrinal difference. I merely stated that other faiths have severe differences in doctrine. Fundamental, ground-shaking differences. - The righteous in Islam receive virgins and an "eternal erection". - Judaism believes in a lack of heaven and hell, and the practice of magic. - Gnostic schools believe that God is a fallen figure, creating humankind out of vanity.
You can argue that there are fundamental doctrinal differences. I agree. But there are differences among all religions.
You might argue that the LDS church makes some claims and takes some positions that are unique. I will agree wholeheartedly. And again, I will posit that this is true of many churches.
You can claim that unique features of the LDS church make it so that you cannot classify it with the "mainstream", that you cannot call it Christian, or any other such. This is your opinion. Many would share it. I would merely counter that one could make similar arguments about almost any other religion.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aros, you certainly misrepresented Catholic beliefs in your post. Not "simplified" but made up from whole cloth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can argue that there are fundamental doctrinal differences. I agree. But there are differences among all religions.
Yes, but these religions aren't competing with each other for common mindshare. In many cases a smaller divide between two groups which claim for themselves the same label will be more meaningful than a larger difference between groups that already recognize their distinction from each other.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can claim that unique features of the LDS church make it so that you cannot classify it with the "mainstream", that you cannot call it Christian, or any other such.
I didn't make any claims about what I classify it. I'm talking about why other Christian religions don't consider you as sharing community with them. To wit, you don't really worship the same God. The name is the same, but the actual entity is different on a fundamental, non-bridgeable level.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're free to believe that it's a different God. But the Mormon view is that they worship the God of Abraham. They only difference is their belief that other religions have an incomplete picture of him.
Tangentially, I would like to think that I pray to a different God than the God of the Westboro lunatics. . . .
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
