And this friendly relationship meant that on the key points of debate in 3rd century Christianity the Catholics adopted many of the Hermetic viewpoint. Sacraments are, in keeping with Hermetic Christianity, not representations of supernatural events but rather earthly processes by which supernatural events occur, "as above so below". For a Catholic, the Eucharistic celebration involves a magick transformation of the host and eating the actual physical cracker in and of itself induces a supernatural change, "the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us." (see Mysterium Fidei, for the official doctrines). And one sees the same thing in the LDS, ordinances, their word more-or-less for sacraments, are actual requirements for exaltation (the good thing you are aiming for in the Mormon faith). And this contrasts completely with the Protestant notion that the Eucharist is an act of prayer and nothing more than a symbolic reenactment, the host/cracker does not in and of itself possess supernatural powers. Philip Lee's Against the Protestant Gnostics, has an excellent discussion of the drift in Protestant thought into essentially agreeing with Gnosticism on almost every point of dispute between Catholics and Gnostics (about 1/3rd of the book is available via. the link).
Moreover Hermeticism, Hermetic Paganism, was also on friendly terms with Catholic Christianity. Catholics began to view Hermes Trismegistus as a great Egyptian King who had lived in the time of Moses and his wisdom as important and key insights. The Hermetics preached that a proper religion should moderate between pure rationality and pure dogma, that the truth lay in-between those two extremes, was essentially an apologetic for Catholic Christianity as opposed to many of the then contemporary forms of paganism which fell on one side or the other. And so by the end of the 3rd century of any kind of distinct Hermetic Christianity was gone. Hermetic Christians had either become Hermetic leaning Catholics or Hermetic Pagans. Hermeticism itself began absorbing Christian thought because of the friendly dialogue and an offshoot form of 1/2 pagan, 1/2 Christian sect developed, Hermes Christianus which was quite often a way point between conversaion away from paganism to Christianity, a bridge religion. Hermeticism died in the 5th century, along with the rest of paganism. And if we identify Hermetic Christianity as the true Christianity, then this death and absorption of Hermetic Christianity, becomes a plausible historical defensible version of the great apostasy that matches the traditional Mormon timelines. And while it was a peaceful death one wonders if Hermetic Christianity had fought, had beaten Orthodoxy, and become the mainstream faith we would be looking at a Christianity of:
- Sacramental theology especially expressed via. church / temple rituals with a magical flavor.
- Legalism.
- Diffuse ambiguous theology drawn from a multiplicity of conflicting sources and open acknowledgement of that rather than hiding behind dogmatic assertions.
- Monotheism with an underlying polytheism.
- Syncretism, an openness to multiple forms of revelation. In particular an open canon.
- A desire to engage creation, to improve it, not to escape from it.
- A desire to improve and develop one's self. In particular the doctrine of metempsychosis, that human soul is perfected during a series of earthly lives; essentially purgatory on earth.
- The idea that salvation is not binary but a degree.
Does that not sound like Mormonism?
These monks created a new Latin body of literature from the Greek, Coptic and Aramaic originals making a Corpus of works and collecting them. During the Renaissance collections of Hermetic works began to circulate. Before moving on to to the Renaissance and the Reformation its worth commenting that, Hermetic Christianity as the term is "officially used" does not include the folk religions, even those magical aspects, that existed alongside this rebirth in the Monasteries. Hermetic Christianity, is Egyptian and incorporates Egyptian / Hellenistic notions of magick not the kinds of Germanic magic one sees on the continent. However it would be fair to say that this folk magick was Hermetic in spirit, and perhaps Hermeticism of the highly educated monks was inspired by the folk magick coming from the last remnants of European paganism.
Hermetica is the term for any Hermetic books. A particular set of translated collections of works, called the Corpus Hermeticum, circulated widely by the end the 15th century. Alexandrian Christianity, with its mixture of ideas from Orthodox Christianity, Egyptian Paganism, Neo-Platonism, Judaism freely drawing from, contrasting and exploring these things fit with the mood of the Renaissance. All of Europe was trying to figure how to intermix their culture with ancient wisdom and here was a model.
Potentially we could have had a Hermetic reformation, but the Hermetic revival was killed off by two main things. First Isaac Casaubon showed that the Corpus Hermeticum could not possible date to the time of Moses (i.e. the still believed Christian dating for Hermes Trismegistus) but rather to 3rd century Egypt. Secondly the success of science in so many areas caused magick to go out of fashion. And by the early 17th century the Corpus as an inspiration in the mainstream was dead, the Corpus Hermeticum stopped circulating widely and became of interest primarily to scholars.
However, the Corpus was the only definitive guide to magick that existed in Europe at the time. So while no longer mainstream among European intellectuals the Corpus did remain active starting from the mid 18th century among European occultists. Those people in alchemy (supernatural transformation of materials) and theurgy (union with supernatural forces to gain, powers or insights). This existed side by side with 18th century sexual radicals who were interested in sex magick, as John Wilkes put it, "to celebrate woman in wine and adding ideas from the ancients just to make the experience more decadent". And when we talk about Christian Hermeticism today what we generally mean groups that are continuous with the 18th century occultists, and from this arises the cultural problem I alluded to the in first part of this essay. These European occultists, and from the 19th century on their American and Canadian cousins, continued to advance our knowledge of Hermetic literature and have conducted innumerable quality research projects, so today a modern student, even one not interested in magick but just history, is in their debt.
In the 19th century though the situation was quite different. Occultist studies became popular again with the middle class in Europe in 1845. And the scholarly translations began to recirculate along with a pletora of new materials that had been researched over the preceding century by the occultists. This movement exploded on the American scene as the American spiritualist movement in 1848. The Spiritualist movement was middle class in its orientation and while drawing inspiration from the literature wouldn't associate socially with libertine upper class variety. American Spiritualism in this first generation definitely identified as Christian. They saw themselves as practicing a form of the Christian faith that used supernatural means to gain revelations form the spiritual realm. The defining beliefs were:
- Communication with spirits.
- The ability for the soul to improve after death.
- Legalism and a strong belief in personal responsibility.
- Christian language though quite often over various non Orthodox theologies like Pantheism or Gnostic Christianity,
- A rejection of a view of God as harsh, sending unbaptized infants to hell.
- Political support for abolition and woman's rights. This often led to a rejection of traditional churches that were opposed or ambivalent on these issues.
In the next section we are going to have to back two decades to the 1830s and talk about the development of the Mormon church prior to the arrival of American spiritualism. That the Mormon church was even during the Joseph Smith years leaning heavily in a Hermetic direction, that it already had most of the aspects of Hermetic Christianity already in place. And thus the Mormon church would have been amenable to the theology and attractive as a religious option for American Spiritualists. It's my contention that most of truly distinctive doctrines of the Mormon church that developed under Brigham Young, including the normalization of polygamy and the infinite regression of Gods, can be explained by this wave of converts reinforcing an already existing motif. Between 1850 and 1870 American churches were not in a growth phase in general (link) but the Mormon church grew from around 20,000 to 80,000 persons, even while experiencing persecution. So our 3rd part will concern itself with the history of the Mormon church.
Link to part3.
47 comments:
I think you over-analyzed this by relying too heavily on Quinn, Owens, and Brookes, making the same mistakes they do. There has not been enough discussion on the "Christian" aspects of the "Hermetic" points of contact. I would suggest reading my post on Mormon Grace for the start of a more balanced theological discussion.
Another problem you run into is the same mistake that the Tanners imply that McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is criticized and rejected by conservative Mormons. That simply is not true, as conservative religious Mormons are the ones that continue to refer to and defend his teachings the most (see here and here and here for example). Even his son, who is considered religiously conservative, has questioned the ecumenicism that has been going on for a while. I do too to be frank. Its the liberal factions that seek to mythologize, de-emphasis, and generally mock the founding articles and history of Mormonism.
Yet, I do challenge the conclusions here that seem to de-Christianize Mormonism. Not that I know if you intended that or not or if its too big of a subject to tackle on a blog. Its the liberal such as Quinn and Ownes, with the help of outsiders like Brooke, that have taken the Hermetic parts of Mormonism and made them out to be the whole. Mormons only started downplaying these aspects after powerful outside sources, like the United States of America and specifically the Protestants and Atheists, pounded it out of them. And continue to do so, like Brooke's book that sounds logical until you start understanding the theological contexts of the uses of the symbols. It has to be acknowledged the hermetic aspects exist, but its never talked about how they were reinterpreted and made unique to Mormonism.
Using Lady Gaga is not a good example for two reasons. First, because she represents a lot that Mormons reject like her anti-authoritarianism, anti-Christian rhetoric. Second, I think you over-estimate her appeal and popularity as she is a manufactured sensation who doesn't actually sell that many albums beyond a select, but large, fanbase. A "generic" Country music singer does ten times better than she does with sales and popularity.
Hi Jettboy --
For lurkers he's actually responding to part 3 not this essay (part 2).
There has not been enough discussion on the "Christian" aspects of the "Hermetic" points of contact. I
You are right. I was mainly trying to argue that Mormonism is Christian at all. I thought I did that in part 1, where I argue that one can in a historically defensible way believe that Hermetic Christianity was the Christianity of the early church. Beyond about 200 CE, and Hermitic Christianity is a minority faith, a fringe.
I identify Mark as Hermetic but Matthew. John and Luke are not. That, as far as I understand it, is the LDS claim to be a restored church, "I testify that this is the Church of Jesus Christ—the only church authorized with true priesthood authority to exercise the keys of salvation through sacred ordinances."
If you don't claim to derive from the Hermetics, what Christian sect can you claim to derive from? Simonians, Ebionites, Marcionites, Montanists? I can't see any group other than the Hermetics that would on most the areas Mormons disagree with Protestants and Catholics take the side of the Mormons. There are specific issues, like prophetic leadership where the Montantists would completely reject the Catholic/Protestant position; but they would also reject Mormon forms of staid worship and the high ritual of the temples.
So I guess I'll start there, do you agree that the Hermetic Christianity is what is being restored? And if not what early sect would you rather identify with?
Its the liberal such as Quinn and Ownes, with the help of outsiders like Brooke, that have taken the Hermetic parts of Mormonism and made them out to be the whole.
I certainly don't think that. But its the Hermetic parts that are the points of disagreement. For example, Mormon support for the family isn't controversial among Protestants & Catholics, its the ritual of sealing where they would disagree. Take out the Hermetic and there is nothing to debate.
And continue to do so, like Brooke's book that sounds logical until you start understanding the theological contexts of the uses of the symbols. It has to be acknowledged the hermetic aspects exist, but its never talked about how they were reinterpreted and made unique to Mormonism.
I'm not following. Why don't you pick a symbol and work it through, with meaning and where it originally came from in your view.
Using Lady Gaga is not a good example for two reasons. First, because she represents a lot that Mormons reject like her anti-authoritarianism, anti-Christian rhetoric.
Well I'd dispute anti-Christian with you. I've never heard her assert anything anti-Christian. You affirms herself as Christian. But... she has taken a stand against fundamentalism
“If it was that easy to get out of hell, why don’t we just print up a bunch of these guys?” she expressed. “It just makes me sad that my fans have to see that. But I know it’s just part of what I’m supposed to do.”
Immediately, a message appeared on the screen reading, “If you have revolutionary potential, then you have a moral imperative to make the world a better place.” (article discussing confrontation).
As for anti-authoritarian. Yes. I think you would find that with every single Hermetic at this point. I think actually deal with that in this post. There are no major standards of authoritarian Hermetics other than Mormons that I know of. Which is why I find Mormonism interesting. That its able to combine Hermeticism with a message supportive of religious authority in this day and age, which is IMHO much more true to what Hermetic Christianity used to be.
Second, I think you over-estimate her appeal and popularity as she is a manufactured sensation who doesn't actually sell that many albums beyond a select, but large, fanbase. A "generic" Country music singer does ten times better than she does with sales and popularity.
According to Forbes June 2009-2010 she did 7th, losing to older acts: U2, Bruce Springstein, Brittany... and Beyonce being the only act in her age group that was anywhere near that high. The top selling Country Singer was Kenny Chesney who came in 9th. And this year is likely to be stronger instead of grossing $95m she's on target to do about a $200m year. We'll have to wait another 2 weeks or so for her actual results and profits but I'd assume she comes in around #3.
More importantly she's proven an entirely new business model for the music industry.
"I was mainly trying to argue that Mormonism is Christian at all. I thought I did that in part 1, where I argue that one can in a historically defensible way believe that Hermetic Christianity was the Christianity of the early church"
Sorry, I was reacting to who you included as your sources and not your posts. If you would have written post 2 and 3 without 1, then I feel my criticisms justified. I take back most of what I said. The trifecta of Quinn, Owens, and especially Brookes refuse to acknowledge the Chrisitanity and focus on the 16th and 17th Century occultism almost exclusively. This plays into the hands of the Evangelical Tanner types who question Mormon legitimacy as a serious (specifically Christian) religion. Including The American Religion: The Emergence of The Post-Christian Nation by Harold Bloom would be a helpful addition to the discussion. He believes Joseph Smith tapped into a Biblical sub-text that modern Jews and Christians ignore. Even the conservative N.T. Wright stated, "I suspect that one of the reasons the Mormons were able to gain credence for their very concrete eschatological expectation was that the Western Protestant church, precisely at that period, was eliminating the ancient concrete eschatological expectation [of a New Heaven and Earth]."
Adding who I consider the detestable and talentless, self-promoting, immoral hack Lady Gag Gag took me over the top. I just can't take her seriously as an artist or especially religious. By the way, why Mormons won't use the Hermetic symbols as missionary tools has to do with the Temple that I'll write about on the blog in answer to one of your questions at a later time. In a nutshell, it has to do with the sacred nature of symbols that make public display problematic.
I will say, however, that my paragraph about McConkie's Mormon Doctrine still stands. You would think its conservatives who sought long and hard to try and get rid of that book, as the Tanners imply, but its not. Liberals were the most vocal critics who demanded it taught false doctrines, while conservatives (and new converts) continued defending and using it as a source of information. The Tanners are also wrong that there is a problem with Mormons saying "its not official teachings," as that is correct. In Mormonism there is no dogmatic systematic theology, only shared community understandings. That drives Evangelicals like the Tanners absolutely crazy. What they see as flip-flops and obfuscation is actually exploration and re-definition inherent in the fluidity of Mormonism. It can't stand still, because of the idea of personal and authoritative revelation. That is another subject that I don't have time to get into.
The trifecta of Quinn, Owens, and especially Brookes refuse to acknowledge the Chrisitanity and focus on the 16th and 17th Century occultism almost exclusively. ..This plays into the hands of the Evangelical Tanner types who question Mormon legitimacy as a serious (specifically Christian) religion.
Let me start by saying I don't think the problem is Quinn, Owens and Brookes. I would agree without that long preface of part1 and part2 the connection between Hermetic Christianity and Mormonism are not necessarily helpful. But I think the cultural context is importan there. Owens likes Hermeticism and doesn't like mainstream Christianity, he's ordained in the Ecclesia Gnostica so he certainly not saying anything meant to be negative in his essays. He probably experienced the same unexpected delight when he first encountered the Hermeticism.
Mormons can choose to look at Hermetic Christians as the authors of the Gospel of Mark, the creators of sacramental theology, the people argued for an actual incarnation rather than a purely heavenly sacrifice.... Or we can look at them as the group that trained and inspired Aleister Crowley and totally taboo.
The problem for Mormons is, assuming they agree that the Hermetics are the early sect they want to identify with, they are going to have to come to a much more nuanced opinion on the occult, than they have today. And I think you do see that in the discussions in discourses on Spirit Rapping, and other spiritualist activities. The magick within the temple are under the law and acceptable and those same rites practiced alone or in small groups are unlawful. You still see this in the distinction between Terrestrial Kingdom activities (those that are good but lawless) and Celestial Kingdom activities (those that are good and lawful). As an aside you see the same distinction being made in some schools of Wicca, which argue that practicing magick outside the coven is how one ends up slipping from white to black magick. Spells a witch would be embarrassed to tell her friends about are probably ones that she shouldn't be casting.
Yes the occult stuff plays in the hands of anti-Mormons today because Mormons as of 2011 have adopted doctrines from wider Protestantism that undercut their own religion. Inconsistencies are the weapons of all anti-literature. My series of the ESV is about examples where the ESV violates its own notion of "essential literal" and instead does theological injections. The reason those are effective is that Reformed Christianity looks with great hostility on Jehovah's Witnesses doing theological overrides, arguing that theology must come from the bible as originally written, that it is the final authority, that all interpretation and understand must derive from the bible. So when you catch them violating that, it creates psychological discomfort.
(part 2)
The 19th century Christian restorationism of Joseph Smith, argued that Christianity as practiced was so far removed from the "true church" as to be diabolic in its effects and thus a new church with entire new rites and new scriptures needs to be established. That is totally at odds with with the desire for adopting the cultural assumptions of political conservatism which is Protestant. Conservative Catholics have to deal with this quite explicitly, they are instructed which Cultural attitudes from Conservatism they can and cannot adopt. I think Mormons need to do the same. Otherwise they end up inadvertently agreeing with the ideology that persecuted the Mormons, and highly vulnerable to anti-literature you are concerned about.
My point is the opposite. You can find no support for revelation via. divination, for The Plurality of Gods or even most rites like for proxy baptism in mainstream Christian literature, from any period. Mormons find themselves religious on the same side of the battle as people they disagree with culturally. The Tanners make use of the conflicts between the Mormon religion and Mormon cultural conservatism. Openly acknowledging the problem and coming to a more nuanced understanding completely undercuts the Tanners' argument. The alternative is tortured bad apologetics, that simply won't hold up long term.
Including The American Religion: The Emergence of The Post-Christian Nation by Harold Bloom would be a helpful addition to the discussion. He believes Joseph Smith tapped into a Biblical sub-text that modern Jews and Christians ignore.
You are right. I'll link off to Bloom in part 3's see also. Lee's "Against the Protestant Gnostics" which I do refer to makes essentially the same points as Bloom, with respect to Protestantism. But I don't think Bloom's book is very good and I think he's wrong.
Mormonism is communal much more so than most American faiths.
Mormonism affirms the importance of leadership.
Mormonism does not aim primarily for mystical communion.
So basically I didn't include Bloom because I think he's dead wrong in his thesis.
(part 3)
I will say, however, that my paragraph about McConkie's Mormon Doctrine still stands. You would think its conservatives who sought long and hard to try and get rid of that book, as the Tanners imply, but its not. Liberals were the most vocal critics who demanded it taught false doctrines, while conservatives (and new converts) continued defending and using it as a source of information.
I don't think the Tanners are arguing the left/right dichotomy you are presenting but more of a assimilationist / anti-assimilationist dichotomy. That getting rid of McConkie is an assimilationist act.
I believe the main reason McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was taken out of print was due to its candid discussion of LDS doctrines that the church is now trying to hide. Such teachings as God once being a man, his wife–Heavenly Mother, and Jesus being the literal, physical son of God are just a few of the doctrines that are being minimized in current manuals. (link)
The particulars of the book seem very conservative. Clearly the book was unabashedly racist, harsh and somewhat fundamentalist. I can understand why Liberal Mormons would not want McConkie to become the guide to standard practice. But that's really not the point I'm trying to address. Mormons may have the same problem with McConkie that Presbyterians do with Robert Dabney, but I'd separate off the political conservatism from the theological insights in trying to discuss them.
There is an entirely different axis which is that McConkie proudly asserted that Mormonism was very much unlike mainstream Evangelical Christianity, and unambiguously pointed out those differences.
In Mormonism there is no dogmatic systematic theology, only shared community understandings. That drives Evangelicals like the Tanners absolutely crazy. What they see as flip-flops and obfuscation is actually exploration and re-definition inherent in the fluidity of Mormonism. It can't stand still, because of the idea of personal and authoritative revelation. That is another subject that I don't have time to get into.
I agree with you. That's the point I was making. But as evangelicals have pointed out by doing interviews, the community understanding of theology is fairly close to McConkie. Take for example of did Elohim in his mortal probations sin? Most of the Mormon membership agree that he very well could have (video from Aaron Shafovaloff).
I think you can make strong theological arguments that make this position defensible, and that some of the implications that Aaron draws from this theology aren't justified. But its a distinctive, someone needs to try and struggle with these distinctives in a meaningful way.
A better model for Mormonism might be Judaism where theology takes a far backseat to issues of practice. But even doing that, arguing that theology is secondary to anything, is a deviation from the Catholic/Evangelical norms. Normative Christianity has a 2000 year history of considering theology important enough to kill people over in large numbers, that's a core theological position. Mormons disagree with that, and I consider it a good thing, but that doesn't change its a major area of disagreement.
"Most of the Mormon membership agree that He very well could have"
Yes, but that doesn't mean He did. That is where the Evangelical critics get it wrong. Theological probabilities and conjecture does not equal doctrine, although they act as if it does! Not only that, but they focus too much on fringe teachings without direct mention of actual central beliefs. If they do discuss those beliefs, they are so contorted and out of context that its really not Mormonism except in the minds of the critics (looking into a fun house mirror, as Prof. Richard Bushman puts it about the Broadway Mormon Musical).
Admittedly, Mormon membership is going through its own discussion of defining the religion as the link suggests. In fact, I would say that your suggestion that,"A better model for Mormonism might be Judaism where theology takes a far backseat to issues of practice," is at the heart of the insider arguments. However, they also have direct ties to the conservative/liberal disagreements as to what practices are of importance. In my mind, if a liberal Mormon can reduce theology to a "backseat," then they can decide for themselves what practices (like Priesthood authority and who holds it) are important and what they can add. They would no longer have to deal with even the minimal theology that determines the practices.
As a conservative I have to say that theology is of equal importance to practice. Likening Mormonism to Judaism in the context of our discussion is a bridge too far. You can't have one without the other in Mormonism as both interplay with each other to make the religion what it is as a faith. There are definite beliefs that as I said in the post above, "I would assume that “Mormonism” means something different than Catholicism, Methodism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and etc. I strive to maintain faith in the minimum (basic) requirements necessary to call myself not just a Christian, but a Latter-day Saint."
I personally don't have a problem growing farther apart from Catholic/Evangelical theological norms similar to McConkie. What I refute is to be labeled non- or even anti-Christian. We still hold Jesus The Christ as the cornerstone of our faith. If critics will allow us that (other than non-Biblical. It is equally as slanderous), then they can call us whatever they like! Personally, I don't want to become Evangelical assimilated any more than I want to talk with them as peers.
Hi Jett lots to dig into to.
Yes, but that doesn't mean He did. That is where the Evangelical critics get it wrong. Theological probabilities and conjecture does not equal doctrine, although they act as if it does!
Whether he objectively did or not [did Elohim sin during a mortal probation] is irrelevant. The question is one of community understanding. And I think Aaron in the video that there is a "shared community understanding". I think you are trying to have it more than one way.
1) You can define a faith in terms of a set of creeds.
2) You can define a faith in terms of definitive teachings of its church.
3) You can define a faith in terms of the beliefs of the membership (however defined).
Under set (1) Mormonism does not have creeds officially. Except there are Joseph Smith 13 Articles of Faith which do seem to play the role of a creed.
Except ... it meant some rejection by people who held that they weren't sufficient, "These articles, of course, do not attempt to summarize all of the basic doctrines of the gospel. For example, the Articles of Faith are silent on such things as celestiral marriage, salvation for the dead, temple work in all its phases, the resurrection, and degrees of glory in the eternal worlds." Bruce R. McConkie
So there is some debate there. But if we were going to pick something to play the role of the creed that seems like a good choice.
In terms of the definitive teachings of the church this is where I think there is a lot of debate. That's because Mormons themselves don't agree on what are official teachings. So you come down:
2a) Canon = The Quad
2b) Comes from official sources: Guide to the Scriptures, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Student Study Manuals, Officially declared prophetic statements. King Follett discourse.
2c) Comes from semi-official heavily used sources: McConkie, General Council Statements....
And its the creeds that play the role of clearing up this sort of thing in terms of relative status. Let me give you an example 890-892 of the CCC).
If the creeds don't definitely define doctrine then something that meets most of the criteria in 2a,2b and 2c does take on that role. If it is further widely accepted by the membership (3) I don't think its fair to not call that a teaching of the church.
Evangelicals are particularly bad about understanding the distinction between different levels of statements, because their own theology is confused on this issue. But they do differentiate very clearly between translators, expected to act within very conservative and narrow bounds and exegesis which is much more a matter of opinion.
I think its reasonable for Mormons to try and differentiate between doctrine and teachings. But until the Mormon church has a clear cut definition of doctrine, then it gets really hard for "X is not doctrine" to mean much. Someone could easily respond, "How do you know if its doctrine? What are the doctrines on that topic? Does the membership accept or reject these doctrines or rather accept the teachings (which is not all uncommon)..."
You can obviously have a very narrow definition of doctrine but then most teachings are on a equal footing.
A good example of this is Bookslinger's comment on your thread. He assert that a belief in the historicity and not just the inspiration of the Book of Mormon is part of the definition of being Mormon. John C then disagrees.
Its an interesting thread but it proves that even on what are the basic defining beliefs the membership are not united.
Protestants and Catholics are going through many of the same things the LDS appears to be going through, its kinda of a natural sort of thing without a state church. There is a big question about do you want to split churches based on practice, based on theology, based on left/right axis or some combination. Protestants ended up splitting on all those axis, Catholics so far have stayed together (with minor exceptions like SPPX).
The LDS has nice escape valves on the left and right (RLDS and FLDS) which might allow it to avoid too much tension, until there is something really divisive. Its most likely that something really divisive which is going to turn out to be what generates creeds. Historicity of the Book of Mormon sounds like a good candidate.
Which brings us to
However, they also have direct ties to the conservative/liberal disagreements as to what practices are of importance. In my mind, if a liberal Mormon can reduce theology to a "backseat," then they can decide for themselves what practices (like Priesthood authority and who holds it) are important and what they can add. They would no longer have to deal with even the minimal theology that determines the practices.
What are the big issues right now between liberals and conservatives within the LDS? You are obviously identifying with the conservatives. What is it the liberals want? Just by way of example Auburn Affirmation is the sort of statement I'd love to see. My guess is that on the Protestant timeline the LDS is in the 1860-1890 phase (the generation where liberals raised a stink and lost badly), so nothing this clear cut might exist. BTW I have a post on what happened in the Protestant Churches you might find interesting, Gresham Machen.
I am trying to be as delicate as possible, but I don't know if you aren't understanding or disagree when it comes to Mormon doctrine, although statements indicate the latter. You state, "I think you are trying to have it more than one way." My answer is, yes I am and yes Mormons do. We don't have a problem with "both" ways or even "multiple" ways of deciding what is or is not doctrines of Mormonism. There are some core teachings that constitute Mormonism, but it isn't always cut and dry. Just because it was taught by one or a few Church leaders in past and present doesn't make it "official" doctrine. Just because its believed by a lot of members of the LDS Church doesn't mean its "official" doctrine. I would even tentatively say that just because its in our Scriptures doesn't make it "official" doctrine.
I guess you could go so far as to say there is no official doctrine, and I would say that is only partly true. The Church wrote an article about doctrine that tried to clear it up for others, but it actually didn't even though its accurate. The idea of "official" doctrine is vague in Mormonism and always has been. Think of it as elitist art. As a Mormon you will know it when you see it, but that doesn't mean others in or outside the LDS Church will agree. For the most part, that is fine. Rarely does anyone get ex-communicated for false teachings. I will bet you if Aaron would have asked if the "sin" of Elohim was official doctrine, they would have said "no."
It goes back to Joseph Smith, "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to." This is related the McConkie quote that is actually a misreading. He didn't reject the 13 Articles of Faith, but simply demonstrated they were not a complete list of what is believed. I and every Mormon I know would agree with him.
You can say, "I think its reasonable for Mormons to try and differentiate between doctrine and teachings," and Mormons would respond that is too limiting. Theologically we want guidance, but we don't want restraints. A Mormon can believe in Evolution and another in basic Creationism and neither of them will be kicked out of the LDS Church for it - and yet Creationism is closer to official doctrine than not. I am a perfect example of this to be honest because I am an orthodox Mormon and yet I believe in Evolution, but will defend Creationism as a legitimate doctrine (and Evolution as perfectly acceptable so long as Adam, Eve, and the Garden are not rejected).
"There is a big question about do you want to split churches based on practice, based on theology, based on left/right axis or some combination."
Mormons don't want to split the Church on any axis, although the political left/right would be where any split would be rather than theology or teachings. One of the ideas of geographic "wards," or demarcated boundaries of worship communities, is to avoid breaking up according to preachers, ideologies, or theological beliefs. Mormons either go to the ward buildings together or they (more than not) don't go. Sometimes a Mormon will go to a building to worship that is outside their assigned ward, but that doesn't happen very often. There are social reasons for this considering the combination of a tight nit community and meticulous record keeping. It wouldn't be hard to know you were not part of the geographic area that makes up the congregation. There are some practical reasons that wouldn't work.
"The LDS has nice escape valves on the left and right (RLDS and FLDS) which might allow it to avoid too much tension"
I have pondered this before, but it rarely works out that way. The more ideologically left or right don't go to the FLDS or the Community of Christ, no matter how logical that might sound for the disenchanted. Both sides end up leaving Mormonism completely. What really happens is that the left leaning will become atheists or liberal Protestants and the right leaning, like the Tanners, will become Evangelical Christians. The majority simply drift away into no particular direction.
"What are the big issues right now between liberals and conservatives within the LDS?"
Not the doctrines and teachings, but the nature of belief itself. Should faith be considered a social construction that can be rejected as myth and fable or is there a reality that must be recognized as Truth? Is Joseph Smith a real prophet who was given real authority by a real God with real experiences or was he a pious fraud who developed a workable fiction of spiritual value (related to that is if those who hold leadership in the Priesthood he claims can be considered having real authority or just figureheads)? Should Mormonism be defined by its orthopraxy or orthodoxy, and if orthopraxy then what practices should be disregarded as indispensable and others as old fashioned if not harmful?
"What is it the liberals want?"
To become a liberal Christian church with a strange history. That is why it is confusing (to me as a conservative) why there are not wholesale conversions to the Community of Christ? They are everything that the liberal Mormons in the LDS Church aspire to and yet don't want to be part of; almost like they reject the authority of the "Salt Lake" leadership and yet somehow reject the legitimacy claims of the CofC and refuse to join.
"Just by way of example Auburn Affirmation is the sort of statement I'd love to see."
And you would never see such in the LDS Church. Both liberals and conservatives would roundly reject it no matter how "conservative" the lists of orthodoxy. Mormonism is a rebellion against such statements of faith. The closest we have (besides the 13 Articles of faith that, ironically, ends up with declarations that it isn't the last word) are baptismal and Temple recommend questions. Those mostly ask if you believe in God, Jesus Christ, the Atonement, the Restoration and Authority of the LDS Church, and if you have repented of your sins and strive to live the Gospel and dietary Word of Wisdom (and pay your tithing for the Temple questions). All of them are very general and focus somewhat on orthopraxy over orthodoxy other than hold to the most basic beliefs. There are not even any questions about the Book of Mormon as historical or not. For Mormons, declaring that something is "official" doctrine or teachings is, more or less, considered bad manners.
Hi Jettboy
I am trying to be as delicate as possible, but I don't know if you aren't understanding or disagree when it comes to Mormon doctrine, although statements indicate the latter.
I'm not quite sure my self. What I'm trying to do is determine is there some sort of unified test that is speaker independent. For example if I were to line up 100 Americans and give them 5000 possible laws, "a ban on any meetings between dog owners", "The house of representative choosing the president if the states cannot decide", "the Army wants to cut housing costs by forcing people who live near bases to allow soldiers to have room and board at their homes", "the right of the police to randomly stop people and ask them to empty their pockets to check for drugs", "the right for the Supreme court to meet to decide issues from the lower federal courts"
And ask them to classify
a) Mandatory under the constitution
b) Optional under the constitution
c) Forbidden under the constitution
I'd get a pretty correlation between answers. Say something like r > .8.
That indicates there is a community understand of what the constitution says. Moreover even if I didn't have a written constitution I'd be able to reconstruct a good chunk of the one we have based on those opinions. Quartering soldiers doesn't come up a lot so if I didn't randomly hit on that issue, that might drop out but the basics would survive this reconstruction. Some stuff might get added like Miranda might be in the explicit text... but I'd get back a constitution.
On the other hand if I were to ask those 100 random Americans about say physics questions "the speed of light is constant in all mediums", "positional energy is transformed into kinetic energy by gravity"... I would not get back physics. The correlations would just be too low.
What I'm trying to determine is if such a thing is true for the Mormon faith. Again I line up 100 Mormons and give them say 1000 doctrines and ask them to classify them:
a) Binding doctrine
b) Teachings of the church
c) Respected view within the church
d) View that is outside the mainstream but not important enough to be heretical
e) View that is heretical
f) Belief in this constitutes full on apostasy
For example in seeing other Mormons, even Mormons who reject the church or don't believe in God; their rejection of the trinity is passionate. They are absolutely positive the god that does not exist, if he did exist would not be triune. So that's an excellent candidate for an (f).
Conversely the belief that Book of Mormon is scripture, is an (a).
Now lets assume I could get a fairly high r (which I'm not sure is the case) then there is still the problem that I think Mormons are using these words incorrect. And let me point out an example using the links you gave in my next response.
The Church wrote an article about doctrine that tried to clear it up for others, but it actually didn't even though its accurate.
That approaching Mormon doctrine is a good example of part of the problem.
This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.
Is a terrific definition of canon not doctrine. They really aren't answering the question, every Protestant church would say their doctrines reside in the same 66 books.
I would say though the article they link to part 1, part 2 is a terrific statement of doctrine. That would work as a de facto creed, understanding you would never want to move beyond de facto to de jure. So let me get your reaction to, for the purpose of discussion letting that 2 part document play the role of an unofficial creed?
Theologically we want guidance, but we don't want restraints. ... (and Evolution as perfectly acceptable so long as Adam, Eve, and the Garden are not rejected).
And how is that not a restraint? What you are saying is evolution is within the domain of the "creed" but rejection of the historicity of the garden is not. That's precisely what a creed does, you can go as far as X but not as far as Y.
a) So, how do you know that's the case? What are you basing this on? What would you say to a Mormon who disagrees and asserts that all that is required is belief in a symbolic Adam?
b) Given the multiple possible sources for (a) how does a Mormon in a principled way choose between them?
To take an example the New Age movement is a religion that I could genuine say:offers guidance but not restraint". But Mormonism has definite notions of heresy, things you must affirm. Moreover Mormons want to be able to make strong positive statements like "We believe Jesus Christ is our savior" and negative statements like "We reject the trinity" and a New Ager wouldn't be able to make "we" type statements like that.
I could probably come up with a 1/2 dozen statements like:
i) there is a perennial knowledge which pre-dates and is superior to all religions and cultures
ii) the cosmos is an organic whole
iii) it is animated by an Energy, which is also identified as the divine Soul or Spirit
but that would be about it.
____
I figured I'd break off the responses on canon from the Liberal / Conservative issues
CD: "What is it the liberals want?"
Jettboy: To become a liberal Christian church with a strange history. That is why it is confusing (to me as a conservative) why there are not wholesale conversions to the Community of Christ? They are everything that the liberal Mormons in the LDS Church aspire to and yet don't want to be part of; almost like they reject the authority of the "Salt Lake" leadership and yet somehow reject the legitimacy claims of the CofC and refuse to join.
Now that's interesting because if the liberal wing is leaning towards liberal protestantism, my read of the conservative wing is they are leaning towards conservative protestantism who is defending the traditional beliefs? I mean if both the liberal and the conservative wing want to move in the same direction...?
Also what about say
Michael Quinn -- who was defending the highly non protestant symbology.
Maxine Hanks -- who was defending the notion of Heavenly Mother.
They seem to be trying to take the church in the other direction. Are they just total outliers?
I should mention you see the same frustration with liberal vs. conservative Catholics. Where conservative Catholics think that liberal Catholics want to be Episcopalian. But then if you ask liberal Catholics they shoot back with aspects of the Catholic faith they are strongly committed to. Just not the ones that conservatives consider terribly important. Its a great example of what you see with liberal Catholics. Liberal Catholics often adore Catholic rituals, and find them very moving. They absolutely see the Catholic church as a source of wisdom and leadership. They absolutely identify with it. They reject the authority of the magisterium in part or in whole though. Church is something they do, not something that rules their life.
So I guess, if I were to ask the question about what liberal Mormons want and why they don't want to join the RLDS would they answer, the same? I'm asking again because your other answer:
Not the doctrines and teachings, but the nature of belief itself. Should faith be considered a social construction that can be rejected as myth and fable or is there a reality that must be recognized as Truth? Is Joseph Smith a real prophet who was given real authority by a real God with real experiences or was he a pious fraud who developed a workable fiction of spiritual value
At least from my perspective seems very very different from wanting to become liberal Protestants. That answer strikes me as wanting to form a non-literalist theology while fully supporting Mormon myth as opposed to Protestant myth.
For example might they be committed to the temple? Or might they be strongly committed to their ward? Or might it be that they support the later revelations?
Which what they are really asking is a creedal question. Is a liberalism (in general) prohibited by the de jure creeds?
In which case, I now understand completely why the left escape valves don't meaningfully exist. For the right wing answer I suspect that the answer about defending traditions above will explicate that one. If not what do the far right conservative critics want?
If I am understanding your argument, what you are saying is that Mormonism is experiencing a creed-al crisis and doesn't even recognize it as such? I will go with you in this direction as a matter of thought process. Then I want to ask you what you think this means for a Church that detests creeds and yet doesn't want to lose the idea of literal truths?
In that case I can see how you are confused. Conservatives and the authority of the LDS Church desperately want to hold on to the reality of Joseph Smith's religious experiences and teachings (especially in relation to Priesthood authority). At the same time, they don't want to set anything down as a specific Dogma that has to be believed. What happens is a "creed" based on learning on your own what those are. This process is maddening to non-Mormons who expect an easy list of doctrinal teachings to point to and disenchanting to Mormons who decide (like the Tanners) that they want a systematic theology that isn't filled with competing ideas. They don't understand that Mormonism is not "lists of doctrines," but a conversation with God and itself. Think of it as case laws. The more the precedence, the stronger the case. However, if a stronger argument comes along or is developed by putting together ideas that weren't before, then a new precedent can form. One generation might seem to work off of doctrines different than the other, but both legitimate for their times.
Michael Quinn and Maxine Hanks were outliers more for how they went about defending their notions. The defiance against authority is a faster way to get ex-communicated than a book about the "Magic" of Joseph Smith (see Rough Stone Rolling, or Bushman's earlier book Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism). Every Mormon will acknowledge a Mother in Heaven, but actually praying to her or (like some ex-Catholics) challenging the male dominated leadership is seen as apostasy.
And that has brought about the new movement of denying the literalness of Mormonism. If they can't argue for liberal change using history and doctrine because the LDS leadership holds vetoing power, then why not just bag the whole thing as mythical and claim LDS Priesthood authority is all man-made? Maybe its my Conservative bias, but that is my definition of liberal Christianity.
"For example might they be committed to the temple? Or might they be strongly committed to their ward? Or might it be that they support the later revelations?"
No, they support liberal political causes. Attending wards or going to the Temple (not one of their favorite things since it symbolically argues the literalness of Mormonism and the supremacy of Church, Family, Priesthood Authority, and Jesus Christ) are means to an end. That end is making the LDS Church like the Jewish religion where your a member by way of relations and not beliefs.
You might be interested in Why Doctrine? blog article. It is mostly asking a question more than answering it, but ties in to what we are discussing.
If I am understanding your argument, what you are saying is that Mormonism is experiencing a creed-al crisis and doesn't even recognize it as such?
I'd say I'm making spot points. Trying to bounce around the idea of creed and doctrine. And figure out how you can make negative and positive statements. But I like that phrasing, I hadn't thought of the problem that way until you phrased it that way but yeah that makes some sense.
Then I want to ask you what you think this means for a Church that detests creeds and yet doesn't want to lose the idea of literal truths?
I'd say it goes more broadly because you have a fairly unique problem of having come (a few steps removed) from Catholicism and they adore creeds. And you are rejecting that, so you have a essentially a creedal statement against creeds. :)
I'd assume what happens is leadership uses a rite as a way of enforcing a creed, and just doesn't call it a creed. For example they incorporate a series of statements directly into the baptism rite. D&C 20 which deals with baptism already contains a mini creed just make sure the person is affirming those statements at baptism. And then just argue that denying those statements constitutes renunciation of baptism.
So you take D&C 20:5 and turn it into a question, "Do you affirm that Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh to Joseph Smith?" Go through D&C 20 and
20:8 "Do you affirm that the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith from on high for him to translate"
20:9 "Do you affirm that this is a record of a fallen people whom Jesus did give the full gospel to?" (historicity)...
Obviously that's just an example. But I think most conservatives would be thrilled with D&C 20 turned into affirmations. And of course the leadership could weaken questions if they don't want to require something strong. For example change D&C 20:5 above to..
D&C 20:5 "Do you affirm that Joseph Smith is a prophet of Jesus Christ"
But mainly the issue is what do you want in terms of enforcement? Protestants in 2011 like to split on the axis. Would you really want an RLDS (or new denomination) with 3-5 million members which was genuinely competitive. Big enough that it would have its own cable television station and could run adds in Utah.
Basically you do lots of excommunications. I don't know the culture well enough but you go after the liberals in droves.
To go after liberal members, you might to move towards a paid clergy. Which is expensive and would generate controversy. But either way, take control of wards more directly. And from there, excommunicate in huge numbers enforcing discipline....
In that case I can see how you are confused. Conservatives and the authority of the LDS Church desperately want to hold on to the reality of Joseph Smith's religious experiences and teachings (especially in relation to Priesthood authority). At the same time, they don't want to set anything down as a specific Dogma that has to be believed. What happens is a "creed" based on learning on your own what those are.
Then why not just ask for that? You have to Mormonize this a bit I'm not quite sure how to phrase this culturally but something like, "I agree to submit on matters of faith and morals to the restored Melchizedek priesthood as represented by the 12 apostles".
That's broad enough that they can add anything they want. That avoids an explicit creed. It establishes the authority but it still doesn't solve the problem of what it means to submit on matters of faith and morals. That takes back to enforcement.
This process is maddening to non-Mormons who expect an easy list of doctrinal teachings to point to and disenchanting to Mormons who decide (like the Tanners) that they want a systematic theology that isn't filled with competing ideas.
I don't think its just non Mormons. Mormons too want to be able to assert that something is or isn't doctrinal, is or isn't a teaching. We discussed this above. For "that's not what we believe" to mean anything, particularly when it can be shown that Mormons do in fact believe it, its problematic.
They don't understand that Mormonism is not "lists of doctrines," but a conversation with God and itself. Think of it as case laws.
I've heard the case law analogy and I really really like it. And incidentally that how Jews (Orhtodox throughout) make policy with regard to practice (which they do take seriously). But IMHO what's missing is a broad consensus about what the different levels are and how to determine if something is at those different levels.
For example a Jew could say, "that's in the Mishnah but not the Gemara and that means it used to be OK to think that but not anymore, the issue is completely settled. Or "custom of my rabbi" its binding, in what would be the equivalent of my ward, but may or may not be binding in another ward. etc...
The common law analogy works in the US because we have a clear set of 4 levels of courts. Without that...
Priesthood authority is all man-made? Maybe its my Conservative bias, but that is my definition of liberal Christianity.
Thought I'd address this one separately because I don't it has much to do with Mormonism. Certainly for liberal Catholics the issue is authority of the priesthood. Though there, quite often the issue can be local leadership vs. global leadership; nuns and priests against bishops and cardinals.
But for Protestants I'd say this is a totally mixed bag. Over the last 100 years its been almost exclusive conservative protestants who have defied denominational authorities. Right now when there are rebellions they are from the right rejecting social changes, particular women's ordination in the last generation and gay ordination in this one.
If you think about the fundamentalist-modernist wars:
1860s-1890s: Conservatives crush liberals.
1890s-1920s: Liberals establish themselves as legitimate form and build numbers slowly.
1920s-1950s: Liberal takeover. Conservatives launch rebellions and lose.
1950s-1960s: Issue of North / South play a bigger role than liberal / conservative.
1970s+ -- Evangelical Christianity sucking evangelical members out. Main denominations get more liberal still. Very liberal denominations leadership, moderate membership, individual pastors all over the place ideologically.
I can understand in a Mormon context with a membership more liberal than the leadership that conservatives view Priesthood authority as conservative. That may be intrinsic to Mormonism but I'd reject that as standard usage. At least with respect to most larger American denominations, its conservatives that consider up the hierarchy to be apostate.
I think we are getting somewhere finally and its been a matter of deciding what words to use as descriptives. Perhaps Mormons do have "creeds" but would rather not use that word with its cultural negative connotations. Your use of Doctrines vs. Teachings might be less objectionable. The idea of different levels of beliefs I think is a good starting point for me and you to discuss what Mormons really teach without getting into a fist fight over arcane or esoteric matters compared to essentials.
As the example of "God sinned" interview to put it into perspective: Is it a Mormon belief (held by normative or authoritative members)? Yes. Is it essential Doctrine (regarded as highly important)? No. Is it a Mormon teaching (found in lessons and over pulpits)? No. Is it speculative (only understood in relation to other more important teachings or doctrines)? Yes. Is it, regardless of how many believe in it, heretical? No. I will have to go into a more organized set of different levels later. They would be my own as Mormonism doesn't have, as you have noticed, a definitive level system. For arguments' sake, its not going to be black or white; sometimes more gray.
I really like the Jewish example of, "that's in the Mishnah but not the Gemara and that means it used to be OK to think that but not anymore, the issue is completely settled." Mormonism might defuse a lot of its critics if used more often. I might adopt it. Perhaps in our discussions I will say "That's M, but not G" and you will understand. An example of this might be the Adam-God theory. That was possibly M, but for sure not G now. If it ever is G then it would have to have serious reinterpretation.
. . . continued
Here are the actual baptism questions, so I don't think your observation is entirely off. Notice, however, the the belief in the Book of Mormon (or Scriptures for that matter) is not one of the required statements for intention to join. Most are action based:
1.Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2.Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
3.What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?
4.Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?
5.You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?
a.The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman.
b.The law of tithing.
c.The Word of Wisdom.
d.The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members.
6.When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?
Temple recommend Interview questions are similar, and I think you'll notice a pattern. I have only included the ones most pertinent to our discussion. The others are like above mostly activity based. Again, the Book of Mormon isn't a required affirmation:
Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? . . .
. . . Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? . . .
. . . Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances? (Notice the self-selection here. It is sort of a spiritual signing of the oath)
Jettboy --
Glad the M-G analogy worked! It also helps me to know that mold works. What I think works well for the Jewish model is it establishes authority without a requirement for infallibility. So Brigham Young can say 10,000 things of which 9900 are right, 1000 wrong and via. a process we determine which are which; over the span of time additional areas get refined and beliefs get put into new light.
Just so you know when using it elsewhere: here is what a page looks like where you can say the different layers as actual layers on a printed page. Here is that same pagetranslated and cross hyperlinked in frames. Obviously Judaism is a lot older so they are working on their 8th layer, while Mormonism is starting to do their 2nd layer.
As an aside Judaism also offers a nice model for community interpretation with pastoral authority. An Orthodox Jew is obligated to follow his rabbi's pasat while still being able to hold the opinion the rabbi is wrong. He's expected to be respectful of course. At the same time wide disobedience of a ruling is consider counter evidence (not definitive) that it was the right ruling. And if you read the sample you'll see this is a single rambling conversation down through 1600 years (and there is another 600 years elsewhere).
Cool so now we have a model. And as a historical aside, Judaism really didn't ever have a creed until Islam. Christianity was too far away. Islam was close enough that there could be Jewish Muslims, theologically Muslim while practicing Jewish ritual, and the rabbis didn't want that. So all good, and providing you are OK with institutions running in parallel to the LDS well the history of Orthodox Judaism is that is exactly what this system creates, it pushes liberals out to form parallel institutions. But what's nice is it frequently allows for remerges once all the people split off.
For example:
early 20th century America:
Orthodox Judaism -- System above
Reform Judaism -- A jewish form of liberal protestantism
Conservative Judaism -- A compromise religion
what's happening:
Hasidic Judaism -- Fundamentalist judaism based on 18th century Poland.
Liberal Orthodox -- Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy but much less traditional, like the Orthodoxy of the early 20th century. Merging with right conservatism.
Reform -- Moving right, on practice and theology. Essentially becoming a left wing form of conservatism, and merging with left conservatism.
Unaffiliated -- A huge range of Jewish flavored: atheism, buddism, spiritualism...
So you can see half of Conservatism is getting reabsorbed. And probably a century from now it just won't exist. And Reform which in 1880s America was rejectionist might by 2080 or 2180 be merging with Orthodoxy again.
Hmmm. Interesting my example was more true. I guess what I'd differentiates from a creed are the open ended statements.
2.Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
What are the acceptable answers to that last part?
Also in the temple rite are the questions "do you have testimony of" answered with "yes" or a testimony?
____
And this is an entirely new topic possibly so arguably if you want to handle this on your blog, or answer separately or table it for now...
4.Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?
Why is this relevant to baptism? It seems like Mormons accept baptismal regeneration (though perhaps not the term): D. & C. 13; 19:31; 20:37; 33:11; 49:13; 68:27; 84:27, 64, 74; 107:20. What happens if a person is answering those questions "yes"?
I will probably stop where we are for now with the creed vs. doctrines discussion here. As you said, it doesn't really have to do with the subject of Hermetic Christianity. The point is we have come to an acceptable compromise in discussing various Mormon frames of theology references. I will say that the Jewish historical model would be very, very unacceptable to Mormon beliefs about Priesthood authority and therefore would not work. The LDS Church and Mormon religion are, to put it in denominational terms, too Catholic (before the Second Vatican). Such divisions would be a complete split.
"It seems like Mormons accept baptismal regeneration?."
I can see your point by the Scriptures quoted, but "repentance" of the individual prior to it is part of the process of spiritual change. One has to have "faith unto repentance" (Alma 34:16) and then can be baptized for the remission of those sins. It is a two step process. A person changes their heart and actions, while the baptism cleanses (Moroni 6:1-4). Think of it as the crude analogy a person has to get out of the mud before a bath will do any good.
All answers with an open ended question can, and usually are, answered with a "yes" or "no" without need of explication; although giving a testimony or remark is perfectly acceptable.
Sorry, I meant all closed ended questions about testimony can, and usually are, answered with a "yes" or "no" without need of explication; although giving a testimony or remark is perfectly acceptable.
Hi, I'll give you a creedal statement in D&C 10:67-70
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10.67-69?lang=eng#
And I think that is why we don't have creeds. The "gospel" is pretty basic as far as creeds goAnd LDS believed creeds are bad specifically because the really seek to add to that simple set of scriptures. Obviously, you could claim the wealth of teachings "add" to that scripture.... but I believe much if not all of what the church teaches can be summarized with repentance, and coming unto the Lord (via repentance, emulation or faithfully keeping the commandments). Interestingly if you read the dozen or so verses preceding those I cited you gain an interesting perspective on other teachings, creeds, etc
Hi Christian --
Welcome to the blog! Just to make sure you are using the word the way we have been, by creed we are using as a defining statement of belief. Repent of your sins and come to Jesus is pretty common to all Christianity, and frankly most religions other than that.
So you are saying, you would consider someone in your church if
a) they want to be in your church and
b) repent their sins to Jesus?
So for example:
-- They could deny the historicity of revelation like D&C or BoM?
-- They could deny prophetic authority?
-- They could fail to follow Words of Wisdom?
etc...?
And is it your belief that's those two criteria are it as far as definite beliefs required?
Hi CD-Host,
I think the problem with a creed is that it tries to narrowly define something grander than the entire universe in a legalistic way. In that sense, to me, it's useless in a framework where light and knowledge are always expanding and growing. From a biblical Christian perspective, it seems to be precisely what Jesus told parable after parable "against" -- by which I mean he was often using story to reveal who the truly righteous were, compared to those who legalistically try to define faith. The faithful Pharisee who gave all he had to the poor and gave thanks to the Lord in the temple was considered less righteous than the Publican who simply recognized his faults, confessed them before the Lord and asked forgiveness.
And I suppose that's another issue with creeds. It necessarily places us in the judgement seat of saying who the Lord is pleased with, when hopefully we know the Lord looks on the heart. (is that a creed you might ask?)
Latter-day Saints are actually quite liberating in a certain regard. I suppose if you want to take a big-tent approach and look at the entire earth, our approach is to view virtually everyone as "going to (some kind of) heaven".
But those who walk a certain path in this life (if available to them based on their circumstances) will be able to progress to the highest kingdom. Those who don't have the hope of continuing on that path after this life (via temple work, eternal progression, etc.).
Now, I understand you don't appear to be discussing things from a devotional perspective, so I'm not necessarily saying this as a form of evangelicizing. But rather to point out from our perspective, the Lord already has a plan for everyone on this earth, and that his "tent" is necessarily bigger than everyone who is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So in a sense, the Lord's church would have to include all those who repent of their sins, and come unto him. The process of coming unto him is an eternal one, and includes a lot of things. Not to mention the concept of repentance can be fleshed out into a lot of things. (Now let's define what are and aren't those "things" you might say)
What's interesting to me is, at any given point in my life, I am certain from a certain perspective you could say, "He doesn't get it" or "He's not believing/living up to 'true doctrine'" and yet I think the Lord would be pleased because of the direction I am headed.
And the direction one is headed, all seems to be based on the concept of repentance and coming unto the Lord. So while, we can certainly take a chalkboard and list a dozen things that you can be doing to not be coming unto the Lord or repenting, there are also a dozen things you could be doing at the same time that shows you are.
....continued
...continuation
It's a bit complicated. Which is again, why I think creeds are such a difficult thing, and perhaps why with God appeared to JS, creeds were referred to as an abomination.
I think you've done a good job of examining the concept of the church, but it necessarily comes through the lens/filter of generations of other religions.
From reading sincere people like yourself who are (presumably) not members, I'm increasingly thinking the only way to get a good understanding of not only the church is to (try to) walk the path laid out by Jesus while continually repenting along the way.
If someone was sincerely doing that, if they weren't sure about the historacity of something in the church, etc. I don't have the slightest problem calling them a member of the church.
The only thing I'd take issue with is, I suppose, is an absolute, "the BoM is not historical" approach, because it would seem to be intentionally taking a position of faith in dis-faith. Nobody has the slightest bit of evidence if it's absolutely historical or not. I guess, I'm "ok" with not being sure, but not "ok" with being absolute about something which is so uncertain. Presumably, the people making this argument are somewhat intellectual, and should know better to make such clear-cut statements, so it strikes me as a bit of hubris to proclaim faith on one hand, but rule out other faith-requiring elements with absolutism.
Better to say you're not sure, but are open to it, or to use LDS parlance, you're seeking further light and knowledge on the subject.
For me an analogy I come back to again and again is a simple one of a coin. If Brigham Young decided to setup a creed saying a quarter has an eagle on its surface, for generations everyone would be convinced that a quarter must have an eagle on its surface to be in good standing with the church. Then when someone comes along and says, a quarter has a portrait on it, presumably, that would be impossible because it would violate the creed established by BY. Except both are true, and it just shows opposing sides of the same truth. Now turn that quarter into a six-sided die. Now turn it into an infinite circle with an infinite number of points/truths.
And here you (metaphorically) are with your simple statement that a quarter has an eagle on it, suddenly looking quite arrogant for seeking to narrowly define something which is in reality, never-ending.
So, in summary, if the Lord himself said those who come to him (as the Publican who comes to the temple) and repents (as the Publican did) is more worthy of being exalted, than who am I to say otherwise.
I know I'm not entirely approaching the subject on your terms, but I don't know why I should have to anyway :P Hopefully, I was at least a bit informative.
Christian --
Thank you so much for the reply! No, that was very helpful, terrific in fact. If repentance and Jesus are the only defining characteristics then, yes that's your creed.
And I intellectually understand the Mormon dislike of creeds. I still have trouble understanding in practice how a conservative (politically, socially) faith can have this sort of open theology but I keep trying to learn more and slowly but surely am starting to see how the pieces fit together.
3 follow ups.
1) It seems you meet the criteria for what Jettboy was calling a "liberal Mormon" in the LDS. I'd love you to respond to the various characterizations. Which do you agree with, which do you disagree with? Anything you would like to clarify? For example your feelings about the RLDS / Church of Christ?
2) You seem to be arguing for something like the Protestant notion of the invisible church. Were would you converge or diverge? What (if anything) do you consider to be the distinctives of the Mormon faith? And obviously here I mean below the level of creed since you have a very inclusive creed "Come unto Jesus and be saved via. repentance". Do you see the LDS as just a different way of "doing church", a different flavor aiming for the same result or are their core differences and what effect do they have?
3) You made the comment that "Nobody has the slightest bit of evidence if [The Book of Mormon] is absolutely historical or not." Could you expand on what you meant there?
As an aside to anyone reading this I found a pretty good page on official doctrine vs. teachings What is official Mormon doctrine.
CD-Host,
The only thing I'm liberal in is my (attempts to) love my fellow man. I'm pretty conservative in the ways of the vast majority of the church, but I suppose if it's to be said I'm liberal, it's that I'm liberal in all the correct ways :)
I do not tie myself in with the philosophies of what is typically considered the "liberal wing" of the church, if that's what you mean. And I'd guess you could find some LDS member who has adopted a bit too much of a certain type of evangelical mindset that would condemn me to hell for believing such and such. But I've never met such a Latter-day Saint, in travelling the world, although I've heard they exist.... of those, I think Jesus' sayings regarding whatever treasured aspect of the "the law" one is obsessing over could be said, "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." I think the way I worded things, might cause one to think I'm being liberal, and I guess I could be accused of trying to have my cake and eat it too... but really I think that's what Mormonism is all about - "Bring all the good that you have and let us add unto it."
I think the RLDS and the Church of Christ are no doubt seeking to do the right thing, and in as much as their heart and actions are pointed in the right direction I'm sure they are working their way toward the Lord's will. But that doesn't prevent me from saying, bring all they have unto the Church of Jesus Chris of LDS and become even better.
Ultimately, as Jettboy (I think) referenced elsewhere, we believe the Lord's will is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
It's true there is ultimately only one way for that, through Jesus Christ, but it's also true billions of individuals are located at various stages along some kind of progression in that direction. I believe God would certainly like all his children to become members of the LDS church, but they need to get there using their own agency and at the appropriate time -- it seems clear for billions that time does not include this life. But that's no reason why we shouldn't make it our best effort to go out there now and bring as many to Christ as possible now and accomplish the most good now. Because it will be for our own good as well as theirs.
2. I hope my comment above helped address your #2. I definitely do not think the ultimate truth (to use such a profound term lightly) is that you can pick your flavor of church and just be a good person. But inherently, it also must be acceptable to God if you are genuinely striving to do the right thing with the light and knowledge you have. We have a scripture that says the
"The Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit."
Again, I suppose you can call this a creed, but I don't suppose that you "must" believe it, but rather its a revealed truth that hopefully everyone will come to know and experience.
But if you tease out that scripture, it's clear God guides and directs all his children, and ultimately as we listen to that direction, we receive more light and understanding. I think at some point that light can and does lead many to the Church of LDS. And I'm thoroughly convinced that everyone that wants to do good, could do even better within the framework of this church.
continued...
Again, being a Mormon means I am being what is seemingly arrogant in saying, "This is the true church and the way God wants all his children to go" while at the same time saying, "But it is free for everyone to decide, and they (those other faiths and certainly well meaning agnostics, etc.) are going to be tremendously blessed in and after of this life, and ultimately the extent of their progression is up to them."
I think in someway the sentiment behind the introduction to our Word of Wisdom can help explain...
"To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God..."
Here we have something which we all take as a commandment, being expressly declared as not a commandment. Now I'm aware of the history, etc. of this doctrine. But I think what we have is God saying clearly, that this is "wisdom", his "order" and his "will" and he is asking us to receive it and choose for ourselves to follow it. It may seem problematic that the church appears to "force" compliance on this "non-commandment, commandment", but I think that reveals an aspect of this church that's not taken into account by most other religions. In a sense, every commandment is a word of wisdom, and we are free to choose for ourselves. But the "commandment" is really the requirement necessary in order to receive certain blessings. We may or may not be condemned for not living up to it, but we'll certainly forgo the blessings that would come as a result of sincerely following that counsel.
The church teaches that all of God's children will go to heaven. If this is the case, you might well ask, what's the point of the church? -- the point is to make it possible to progress to the highest degree both in this life and beyond the veil by providing ordinances which endow a person with spiritual strength, physical blessings, to accomplish what God has set out for them (maximize their potential you might say). And ultimately the culmination of that is given in D&C 84, in the oath and covenant of the priesthood where the Lord says, "All that my Father hath shall be given unto him."
Of course, we can't receive that tremendous blessing, if we don't follow in the footsteps of his Son and put ourselves on the path of becoming like (and united) with him.
This progression would be possible during and after this life, as I understand it. However, we don't suddenly become a different person at that point but would have to continue to grow to become what we are capable of becoming.
The irony of all of this sounding like very confident, creedal beliefs is not lost on me, however. But one of the strengths of LDS doctrine, as I see it, is that it places this life within a context and each of our experiences here will necessarily have an impact for our own good in the eternities. Another scripture says, "All these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." - A revelation given in section 122, during a time of great persecution and imprisonment.
3. We dispute what happened two weeks ago. I don't think we can know with a certainty what may or may not have happened in various places on the American continent regarding the BoM many years ago. Obviously the archeoligcal evidence points elsewhere, but if growing by faith (with the light and englightment of the spirit as cited above) is an important part of this life, then many things would have to be obscurred in order for us to work out our own growth without the burden of heavy handed proof requiring us to believe one thing of another.
The kind of proof I believe God wants each of us to have is individual, and comes by way of a testimony -- through repentenace and following him, which requires asking questions along the way.
You might be surprised that I agree with Christian on everything said. There is some truth to the idea that I do put things in more legalistic terms, but that is only because I realize that is how you personally best understand things. This place is, after all, called Church Discipline. The Lord tells us to teach according to the language of our listeners.
I want to thank Christian for chiming in by the way. No, I don't think he is among the liberals that I am thinking of. The ones I am constantly criticizing don't seem to care about repentance and refuse to show respect for the Church or its Priesthood holders. In fact, what Christian said is actually a rather conservative Mormon (perhaps orthodox is a better term?) explanation.
My response to your question is a little more legalistic and shorter:
They could be baptized even if they don't believe one darn bit of Mormonism (even if they have faith in the traditional Trinity) so long as they in all seriousness are repentant and humble before God and those who are considered holding the Priesthood of the Lord. Why they would want to I don't know. Realistically, those who hold the authority to baptize (and I could you, as an example, if I felt you were ready to receive it and my Priesthood leaders gave the ok) might have serious reservations because of the little faith in what the Church teaches. Yet, you could successfully argue, if you really wanted to without mocking, that repentance and faith in the Atonement of Jesus qualified you for Mormon baptism.
Jettboy --
I fully appreciate you trying to meet me 1/2 way on the legalism. I understand that the systemization I'm trying to force is artificial and possibly worse yet distorting. But that the way I think... much less legalistic than this and it would just move into the realm of incomprehensible. So thanks.
That being said, you have now entirely lost me. Yesterday we were discussing the part of the baptismal rite where it asked if for example the person is on parole. I'm an x-evangelical and I flinched at that one. Baptismal regeneration is one of the things I hold most dear about the Christian faith... even asking the question in that context, seemed like a partial denial of baptismal regeneration. I'm sure my emotional reaction was unfounded so I tried to hit that a bit obliquely in my question, and figured I'd do some research and get back.
But then the very next question which preconditions baptism on a willingness to accept the Words of Wisdom. Its not uncommon as a requirement for baptism but it goes well beyond a willingness to repent of sins, it seems to be a requirement of submission with regards to practice and an acceptance of Church law.
This is what I'm not getting. Do an Mormon need to just accept the doctrine of repentance or does he need to accept other doctrines as well? Almost every liberal Christian I know adores the doctrine of repentance and practices it. Just as a personal example, even when I was 90% of the way out the door for Christianity, every Sunday I used to go to the first service early so I could have time for quiet contemplation of the week and repentance. I loved that time.
____
We've been using the same of the BoM:
CH -- We dispute what happened two weeks ago. I don't think we can know with a certainty what may or may not have happened in various places on the American continent regarding the BoM many years ago. Obviously the archeoligcal evidence points elsewhere
JB -- Its the liberal factions that seek to mythologize, de-emphasis, and generally mock the founding articles and history of Mormonism.
What Christian is saying, strikes me as a denial of historicity of the BoM. Now its in the context of an overall skepticism about the possibility of any kind of historical knowledge, which possibly softens it a bit. Or possibly makes it worse if one wants to assert a doctrine of historicity.
And I understand that as I'm writing this I'm thinking in creedal terms. But I still can't help but see what you wrote and he wrote as stone cold contradictions.
So you have lost me.
Christian --
I have no idea whether the words liberal or conservative really apply to Mormonism at all. Its more of a carryover from the factions that emerged in Protestantism after the Fundamentalist-Modernist debates. We were using these words on the thread, you were expressing precisely the views (from my way of reading them) that Jettboy had attributed to liberals so I applied the label. You both are in agreement the label doesn't fit, and I'm not particularly attached to it.
I do not tie myself in with the philosophies of what is typically considered the "liberal wing" of the church, if that's what you mean.
I'm not sure what I mean at this point. I'm just confused at the answers. What do you consider to the be the philosophies of the "liberal wing" of the church? What are their defining beliefs? I noted you commented they don't exist.
So I guess what is your definition of heresy with respect to an LDS member?
___
In terms of the doctrines of the church. Let me describe a doctrine to you which sounds quite a bit like what you are describing and you tell me where you agree or disagree.
God through Jesus ordained one earthly church, one baptism and one eucharist for the remission of sin and salvation (or exaltation). Other people are saved by that Jesus and that one true church even if they are unaware of it. Over time other churches have appeared and those churches have part of the truth, and are capable of providing guidance though a defective guidance because of what they inherited from the one true church.
Thus any church that draws closer to the true church provides better guidance and any individual who quits one of these partial (or defective) churches to join the true church will receive better guidance.
Just let me know which parts you would agree or disagree with. I'm trying to apply categories I understand to what you are saying about the churches.
For the most part I think the Church doesn't care what you believe so long as you are engage in appropriate behavior. This doesn't always happen due to the nature of individuals acting as Bishop and so forth. But it's a good first order approximation.
That's not to say that Mormons as people don't think such things matter a great deal. Just that it's pretty easy to be a practicing well regarded Mormon while disbelieving in a lot of Mormon historical claims. Now if you start talking about those beliefs you'll get some blowback. And if you start teaching them (i.e. persuading others) then you'll really get some pushback from the Church. But by and large Mormons are more focused on community and service than dogma. Which is why creeds are so disliked.
"What Christian is saying, strikes me as a denial of historicity of the BoM."
Oh no. I don't deny the historocity of the BoM. I also wouldn't be surprised if whatever historical locations/theories/etc. were flat out wrong. I am quite frankly not the least bit concerned with them, reread my previous bit about faith and an individual testimony, which I think is foundational to the church.
I don't understand how or why some people choose to get so worked up over looking for various bits of historical evidence. Now, I understand from a certain perspective it's enjoyable, and even perhaps we can learn something. And maybe in apologetics it helps build a small wall around those who are still trying to do those things which would be conducive to receiving personal revelation on the subject.
But I feel pretty confident that if the BoM were true, God could not possibly let anyone find a smoking gun of its authenticity. At most, just little hints here and there. Otherwise, a great purpose of this life -- to learn, grow, and walk by faith, would seem to be nullified. I just look at how overly confident some other Christians are by pointing to various pieces of historical evidence of the Bible, and think they are missing the point.
All the important "stuff" we have no proof for and can never have proof for. Resurrection into an immortal body? Being raised from the dead? The concept of an Atonment?
These are things we have to have a personal revelatory experience with God through his Son Jesus Christ in order to really "know" (according to my belief) -- or you might say "experience as a part of our daily life".
So, that's why it would just seem so strange to me that some would get so hung up on the location of some Nephite city, etc. and seem to think it disproves the BoM. I get exploring for cities because it's a fun hobby, but as a faith building/detracting goal it seems to miss the boat of faith in general.
Re: the Liberal debate "So I guess what is your definition of heresy with respect to an LDS member?"
Don't get me wrong. I think a good many theories advocated by those under the liberal label are wrong. But often their wrongness is one of degrees, in that they shut out further light knowledge and stake out their position as if it's the truth people should rally too.
Now the "conservatives" do this as well, but usually it's in the direction of focus on the words of the prophets. Take the issue of immigration -- I think in this regard the "conservatives" went several bridges too far...
I really don't look at anyone as a heretic and I've never once called or thought of that label applying to anyone. If you want me to find someone to apply it to now, I'll tell you the only time I've ever been really upset at another brother in the church was when they refused to love someone as they should have. Not upset to the point of fistfights, but just having an illfeeling all day that somehow there could be a memeber of the church who just didn't get that fundemental premise. And it wasn't just a catty, "I don't like that person" but just an outright refusal to go and show loving concern and visit them at a time it was needed because they thought such and such about the person. In this instance, there was an individual ministry, so to speak, that really could only be applied by them based on history, but they refused to do so. I think the spirit won out though, because a week later they followed through and realized they were in the wrong, even though the other person was also "wrong".
As far as your scenario, it sounds good to me. I don't know if I like the term defective guidance, because in many ways you are labeling what is truly inspired guidance as "defective". Sometimes, I think individuals can get defective guidance from our own church -- but that will only happen if they are not following and relying on the spirit as they should.
In the sense that all of us are imperfect, all of our guidance will be defective. We kind of have to muddle our way through life don't we? But being worthy to qualify for, receive and act on revelation from the Holy Ghost is invaluable along the way.
Oh, and on defective, I'd just add we are soo poor to judge. What may seem "defective" in this life, could server significant purposes in an eternal growth sense.
Token example, I'm pretty sure those who mocked and crucified Jesus thought he was giving defective advice and it must have looked that way at some point for Peter to have denied him 3 times in fear -- ie. he didn't yet understand the eternal significance of what appeared to be a setback.
And so I come back to another principle I mentioned earlier... progression, line upon line. Whenever we see people shutting the doors to future revelation and declaring their creed as mutually exclusive, unless it's on pretty firm ground like repent, come unto Jesus, love your neighbor, then they seem to be shutting the door to further light and knowledge.
I'll agree you could probably even parse some of my words and think I or other Mormons demonstrate that attitude. But that's probably more of a function of language and not being able to say it all at once with all the necessary qualifications, etc.
Which is why the spirit and charity is so necessary in our conversation, preaching, and action.
Thanks for yours in this regard. I don't know if I'll be back here commenting for awhile, I am spending too much time typing! But I'll probably lurk :)
Clark --
Very few religions require ongoing professions of faith that are specific. Some require people to repeat a creedal statement regularly, like the apostle's creed. But even that's not terribly effectual. 54% of regularly attending evangelicals deny a bodily resurrection though I assume all if asked would say they believed the apostle's creed.
And generally most require act of teaching for heresy. Most Protestants would use a definition like, ‘Any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance.’
So that's not unusual. What is unusual is the open culture in a conservative church. On the other hand there do seem to be a sort of hidden creeds, in Mormonism... "beyond this you may not go." I'm just not sure how those are established or known.
Maybe the small number of excommunicated authors?
That's interesting. I'd not have expected it to be that high. What is the source for your statistic? I googled it but couldn't find it.
I'm not sure there are hidden creeds but there are certainly socially taboo topics in some settings. I don't think one should even by analogy call those creeds. Since the most dominant one is to not talk about polygamy (which makes most Mormons pretty uncomfortable - myself included)
I agree, as has been hinted at, that the closest analogy to a creed in Mormonism is not the articles of faith, but the baptismal interview. This is because it limits access to membership, and to the degree that the questions are about beliefs rather than just worthiness, they set limits on what is orthodox belief. Nobody is going to kick you out of the church for not believing in "the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes," or not believing that "Zion, the New Jerusalem, will be built on this, the American continent," even though those beliefs are expressly declared in the articles of faith.
While they do not differ greatly in content, I think the interview for a temple recommend does not serve the role of a creed because it defines beliefs/practices necessary for membership in a holy order, so to speak, but not for church membership.
But while these interview questions serve the function of a creed, I think the biggest difference is that a creed is generally unchangeable (at least in contemporary Christianity, anyway--I'm well aware that the process by which they came about involved changes). The baptismal interview has changed several times over the years (at least in minor points), and probably will continue to change in the future. What I'm getting at is that Mormonism is uncomfortable with the idea of inflexible limits on orthodoxy, probably stemming from the belief in an open canon and expectation that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
Additionally, if you look at LDS criticism of the idea of a creed, when it isn't focused on arguing the substantive issues about whether the historical creeds are correct or incorrect, it attacks the creeds based on the notion that the creeds came out of a process of philosophical arguments and political accommodation rather than revelation. It isn't that Mormonism rejects all limits on defining orthodoxy, it's that these limits should come from revelation, and they should be tentative, rather than absolute.
I also agree with the separation between doctrine and creeds, and between teachings and doctrine. A good source on distinguishing doctrine from teachings is J. Reuben Clark's 1954 address: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V12N02_70.pdf
Hi Clark --
I can understand why you had trouble finding it, Scripps Howard/Ohio University doesn't allow crawling, (robots.txt file) and worse only keeps their last 2 years of polling data on the web and this was from 2006. So it appears the original is lost. press release with the data
It does appear my stats from memory were a little off the group was 2:1 evangelical but more mixed.
JKC --
I think the biggest difference is that a creed is generally unchangeable (at least in contemporary Christianity, anyway
Actually not quite true. I can understand why you get that impression living in America. In America the liturgical churches are anxious not to grow further from Evangelical churches. In many other places in the world the goal is to enhance the faith of the faithful and they don't particular care what evangelicals think.
One creed for example that's being changed is the Marian dogmas:
1) Mary is the Mother of God (QeotokoV, Theotokos), proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
2) Mary was Ever Virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus, proclaimed in 649.
3) Mary was immaculately conceived, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX on 8th December 1854.
4) Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul, proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on 1st November 1950.
There is a firth one that's being discussed is:
Blessed Virgin Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all humanity in her roles which God has given her as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces
This view was rejected as too radical that proclaimed the 4th dogma that met from the 20s to the 40s. But that debate is going on right now. The losing side never gave up and that belief is optional. Pope John Paul II on Mary's role as Mediatrix in 1997, but that was personal opinion not infallible doctrine.
The current wave to make it official doctrine is headed by people like: : Cardinal Telesphore Toppo, archbishop of Ranchi, India; Cardinal Luis Aponte Martínez, retired archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico; Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil, major archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly, India; Cardinal Riccardo Vidal, archbishop of Cebu, Philippines; and Cardinal Ernesto Corripio y Ahumada, retired archbishop of Mexico City.
Benedict XVI have had multiple meeting with As well as meeting with other churches that are either joining or leaving the RCC to determine impacts.
I could give other examples if you want. But yes creeds can change. I'll address the rest later but wanted to hit on the matter of fact separately.
Hi JKC --
OK lets get to the meat of the issue with that detail out of the way.
Additionally, if you look at LDS criticism of the idea of a creed, when it isn't focused on arguing the substantive issues about whether the historical creeds are correct or incorrect, it attacks the creeds based on the notion that the creeds came out of a process of philosophical arguments and political accommodation rather than revelation.
I'm not disputing that's what actually happened, in terms of accommodation. That's a fair criticism. But I would dispute there is any kind of structural difference other than 500 more years of history.
Historically there was a series of statements of faith and a profession that was made prior to baptism.
So around 150 you were baptized with some formula like:
In the Father, the Ruler of the Universe,
And in Jesus Christ, our Redeemer,
In the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete,
In the Holy Church,
And in the Forgiveness of Sins.
But around 215 you have interrogation form (i.e. a series of questions):
Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?
Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God,
Who was begotten by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary,
Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
and died and was buried and rose the third day living from the dead,
and ascended into the heavens,
and sat down on the right hand of the Father,
and will come to judge the living and the dead?
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
in the holy Church, and in the resurrection of the body?
Your baptismal formula seems designed to assure the person shares basic beliefs and is willing to meet behavioral standards. Those there is also the stuff about past behavior that I don't get like "no parole", "have you ever had a homosexual relationship"... I assume there aren't deal breakers so I'm not sure exactly what they are doing there.
A lot of the specific additions here were to keep various types of heretics out of the churches. The Mormon church, AFAIK hasn't had the problems of various subgroups disloyal to the main leadership recruiting from outside ever. The Mormon church has the advantage of having a pretty powerful hierarchy from day one, and its been operating in a situation of easy communication and relative peace. We'll check back in a few centuries.
-- Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?
Generally threw in when it was an issue "Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein" keep out the Marcionites.
-- Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God,
Can replace with "..by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God"
Jesus is the Logos not the redeemer, keep out the Gnostics.
-- Who was begotten by the Holy Spirit from the Importance here is Jesus Christ not Christ from/is the Holy Spirit and Jesus from Mary keeps out the adoptionists...,
-- Virgin Mary
Keeps out Docetics..
etc...
-- Crucified under Pontius Pilate
Keeps the ahistorical people, example the Sethians. People don't believe Jesus was actually the one crucified (can't remember off the top of my head that group).
Anyway you get the point.
So your creed and the apostle's creed till say 215 have a similar function. You have a mixture of faith and practice there's is purely faith but I see them as similar.
Now in terms of revelation you'll notice this has 11 lines for each apostle except Judas. So the rumor started this came from the apostle's one line from each. I.E. that is revelation.
I'll stop here for now since I assume you are going to have lots to dispute but can't anticipate exactly where you are going to go. Basically the thesis is the 215 version of the Apostle's Creed, which is still a long way away from something like Westminister Confession, is what's going on. You are just starting the re-starting the process from scratch. I'll build up after this.
Post a Comment