This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In preparation for the currently ongoing papal conclave, I decided to read the official rules currently in force, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, issued by John Paul II in 1996. The document contains this provision (emphasis added):
Seems simple enough right?
Whoops.
Here I was, a schmuck, reading the canonically promulgated apostolic constitution as if it mattered, as if the supposed men of God involved in this 2000-year-old institution might care about established procedures.
Sure, Francis could have changed the rules, as many popes have done throughout the centuries, but he didn’t. He either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and neither did anyone else with influence within the Vatican either. How am I supposed to take this seriously if the cardinals and popes don’t even take it seriously?
I wish Christianity were true. I really do. It would certainly make my dating life easier. I’d have a sense of purpose in life, defined rules of virtue to follow, but it just doesn’t make any actual sense. The inconsistency I cited above is relatively minor, but it is illustrative of what one finds everywhere when one digs into the claims of Christianity and treats them with the truth-preserving tools of logic. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II, Matthew 24:34, these are fundamental truth claims that can’t be handwaved away like the finer points of ecclesiastical law.
Obviously, as a Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whew) I think you're actually on the right track. It's so blindingly obvious that the Catholic church is bumbling along, with zero internal consistency, for centuries and centuries. It shows up all over. Even today, Catholics are very loud about a number of major issues, but very small numbers of actual Catholics actually agree with their own church's doctrine, much less practice it, and that's even before you look at any history at all. Don't get me wrong, I respect Catholics, I get along with many, I still view the religion as an overall net good, etc. but their doctrine is a mess. I genuinely extra respect the Catholics who attempt to pull the doctrine together into a coherent whole, but I just don't see the hand of God guiding them.
Now, doctrinally, to me, this all goes away quite neatly when you give up on the idea of the Catholic line of authority being unbroken. Clearly they strayed, it's self-evident, so my own faith has the nice idea of needing someone to restore and clarify things and have a modern guide/prophet. I'm not saying that people don't find any inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine, there's a people component to be sure, but it's several orders of magnitude less. I strongly reject this idea that doctrine is developed by groups of people hashing it out. Council of Nicea? Convened by Constantine, he basically says I don't care what you produce as long as it's something unifying, and once you do, we'll burn the writings of dissenters and exile anyone not with the program. All this to say you should meet with the missionaries :)
As a Protestant, I agree with you that the papacy is no guarantor of doctrinal fidelity. But the core question is this: The pope is said to be the vicar of Christ – is he? Flawed historical assertions and doctrinal contradictions count as evidence against the claim, but the claim itself is true or false and should be addressed as such. (Whether this is the right forum to go deep on that question is a separate issue.)
The same is true of claims about the president of the Mormon church: Is he a true or false prophet? Having a true prophet may be useful, but that doesn’t determine whether Joseph Smith and Russell Nelson qualify. Flawed historical assertions and doctrinal contradictions count as evidence here too. And I think it’s audacious to say that the LDS score well.
What about the Mormon history of pre-Columbian America, which doesn’t jive with any historical source or archeological finds? Or the book of Abraham, whose source manuscripts turned out to be Egyptian funerary texts once we could read hieroglyphs? Or the edits to the Book of Mormon regarding the nature of the godhead? Or the doctrines which were said to be unchangeable but were nevertheless changed, like plural marriage?
I believe that the idea was to have an apostolic guidance for the church as a whole but persecution, deaths, unauthorized doctrinal changes, undue pagan influences, power grabs, a view that the Second Coming was imminent, and the gradual loss of divine revelation made the church fundamentally changed and eventually bereft of authority. Perhaps some city bishops had some legitimate authority for a while, but the connection that e.g. the Bishop of Rome would have any actual special sway over the church as a whole is highly suspect, as was especially the consolidation under Constantine. The later "sins" of the Catholic church are some evidence, but not the primary evidence. I agree that to the extent historical matters should be considered in coming to spiritual conclusions, that history both theological and otherwise are fair game for examination - though my comment was more about the theological history of the Catholics than their more political/historical acts.
Getting a little off topic I guess, but in terms of Book of Mormon history, the position has long been (and is mildly supported in-text) that the people there were simply one of many living side by side. Archeologically speaking, we simply do not have anywhere close to a comprehensive survey of all peoples who lived in Mesoamerica. Among the Maya, for example, we've only excavated about 1% of the sites and of those sites only 10% of what's there, approximately. The Book of Abraham I feel was used as a starting point for inspiration on Abrahamic writings rather than a true transliteration, though admittedly there are decent reasons to think otherwise I certainly wouldn't begrudge others for believing. A few edits to a single section don't really change anything about LDS in-text our out-of-text teachings on the Trinity. Many Old Testament prophets were polygamists, so clearly it's compatible with Christianity, yes? It's I believe a plausible or even likely reading of the history that Joseph Smith was forced into accepting plural marriage (obviously it brought nothing but trouble) as part of the "restoration of all things", i.e. re-treading parts of earlier pre-Christ Christianity as part of the doctrinal point that the gospel (Christianity broadly from Adam to now) is now in its ultimate and most complete form (though some allowance is made for new knowledge, teachings, and practices to be either restored or newly given). At least under this model of Christian history, there's far less confusion over having to litigate and reexamine each and every piece of modern practice and belief - Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise - for accuracy. Study is helpful for understanding true religious principles, and might be a rewarding activity, but it is not the cornerstone of doctrine, nor is there a need for major political activism to influence church leaders at the church-wide level.
Returning back a little bit to the original point, it's amazing to me that anyone would read the Epistles of Paul and come to any conclusion other than that there were serious doctrinal misunderstandings by new converts everywhere, on top of the rampant persecution, on top of the behavior problems, on top of the cultural difficulties popping up as many new members tried to blend their previous beliefs into the new religion. The vibe is that there's definitely a bit of a mess out there, yeah? Paul was obviously, I think everyone agrees, capable of correcting misunderstandings and offering some excellent guidance, but there were only so many people like Paul, and fewer by the year. And there's little evidence as far as I'm concerned that anyone satisfactorily took his place, much less the Bishop of Rome, though a few bishops tried to a limited extent.
I appreciate the summary. Could you clarify what you mean by authority in this context? You seem to be using it in a particularly Mormon way.
It likely goes without saying, but the Protestant take is that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative guide to the apostolic faith and that all subsequent teachers are to be judged by that standard; the canon is closed.
Obviously, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have their takes on the apostolic succession, but I don’t think their notion of authority is the same as yours, and it would be interesting to see it explained from your side.
Yeah, so to illustrate I’ll work backwards a bit. In LDS theology ant least, authority is given directly from God and is never assumed, nor transferred implicitly. For us, a modern council of 12 apostles is where the overall legitimacy resides, as it did anciently, given by various figures literally appearing and laying on hands in the earlier days of the church - a specific prophet in some cases for specific authority (Moses and John the Baptist, for example). Peter James and John jointly appeared to ordain the first set of apostles and prophet to those roles, including Joseph Smith. Succession is done by unanimous choice of the apostles to whom authority reverts, though historically it’s always been the most senior in time served selected as the next prophet.
We would distinguish that all authority is not equal - although the “priesthood” is the power to act in God’s name more generally, authorizing an eternal marriage is different than authorizing say a baptism. Only the 12 hold every “key”, in our vocabulary, to do every relevant action. Authority is also nearly synonymous with the actual right to receive specific guidance for your position, such as leading the church, and at the top that encompasses doctrinal revelation. Authority more generally is theologically important for many reasons, but most fundamentally, for one to give force and validity to promises made on behalf of God it seems like you’d obviously need His permission, as He ultimately is the one with the power to guarantee His part of the deal - marriage, baptism, communion, etc. I would view it as a great error to assume humans are allowed to do it all by themselves with their own permission (Hebrews 5:4).
This applies on a mundane level too. For example the various sacraments (we would call them ordinances) such as baptism or communion are only able to be performed because of an explicit line of delegation - all again through selection (we have a lay clergy and it’s impossible to seek priesthood as a career) and laying on of hands for specific permission and again, authority. But all of it has a source, both in acting capacity (church governance, who is above you in the leadership tree, which is strictly hierarchical, think military in the sense everyone has a commanding officer, if you will) and in ordination (I can trace my personal general priesthood ordination, who laid hands on who, back through the same) which is an important distinction. In other words, delegation can occur, but it still has an ultimate source. To illustrate, although I’ve been granted the authority (capability we could say) to baptize generally, I’d still need the permission of the relevant authority to do so (in the case of a non-convert baptism, the local bishop, himself delegated that down through the chain).
Jumping back in time, eg Stephen and the others are set apart via laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6) and it is mentioned as a way of commissioning (Acts 13:2-3, 1 Tim 4:14 ), though other passages aren’t as explicit. We all know Jesus gave Peter the sealing power. He also specifically ordained the 12 in the first place, giving them power (Mark 3:14-15). Jesus talks about authority coming from him on a few occasions, and granting power (eg Luke 10:19). The scriptures are great, my church did actually come from a Sola Scriptura initial background, but in general the intention is for them to be used alongside current divine guidance (eg 2 Tim 3:16-17). Throughout a number of other references, there is a link drawn between having authority and also specifically doctrinal teaching as well (Titus 2:15, 1 Tim 1:4, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Peter 1:20, etc), though of course settling debates between those with authority has very few examples (we only really see the Jerusalem meetup in detail). And self evidently, the Bible is not self explanatory enough for everyone to arrive at the same position, which is actually one opinion we might share with the Catholics, though the approach varies significantly, there are still some commonalities in the details even.
I don’t have the time or focus tonight to give this as thorough a reply as I’d like, particularly to the biblical references, but I will write what I can and try to pick out the most important points.
Ah, I see where your reservations about Paul come from. Interestingly, while no biblical figure matches the idea of apostleship you lay out below, including Jesus’ twelve disciples, St. Paul comes closest in other respects.
This explanation is very helpful, and I think it’s a very important difference between Mormonism and Christianity.
Hebrews is saying something almost the opposite of that. It’s about how the high priesthood of Christ is the ultimate reality toward which the Levitical priesthood pointed. Christ having accomplished his sacrifice once for all, the Old Testament priesthood is now unnecessary.
I don’t see how you get that from 2 Timothy at all. Particularly if you look at the whole passage starting in verse ten, Paul is saying that the Scripture itself is edifying, that it gives knowledge of salvation, and that it lets one discern false teachers. Verse 16 discusses its use between Christians in a way that applies to church leaders, but there is no sign of an expectation of ongoing revelation to those leaders.
No problem, still appreciate the reply. Hope it's been interesting for you as it has in return. Or maybe I have too much time on my hands.
Paul's definitely an interesting case. Of course we all must acknowledge to some extent that the NT after the gospels is not really a comprehensive look at everything going on in the church, there's some "selection bias" so to speak. A lot of the leadership seems to have viewed him as the go-to guy for Gentile stuff, despite not even being a Gentile himself (though his Roman citizenship and language proficiency certainly made him better suited for the job than many of the 12), but the exact extent of his authority and his position isn't spelled out very clearly, though we do have hints. And on top of that, although the LDS position is that the 12 apostles are special, the word "apostle" is used a bit more freely in the NT, and Christian vocabulary is just getting defined anyways, somewhat haphazardly. With that said, I'll freely admit that at some point, I and others choose to make plausible inferences about Paul. This "backwards" reasoning is not load-bearing despite that, I still think it's decently supported. For example, although the laying on of hands isn't strictly mandatory for some stuff, I choose to believe that at some point he was given some sort of special dispensation to fill the role he filled in the early church, and definitely people perceived him as such beyond just respect for the man that brought them the gospel of eternal life. Regardless, I do not think he was operating as a rogue preacher or anything, rather he
You're definitely correct that Hebrews has a very particular audience and goal. Aside from the wide belief that it's not actual by Paul, it's directed toward Jews and their questions about, among other things, how Jesus was from Judah, in hopes of keeping them in the church -- a big issue for the Jews who have believed for centuries that Levites are the only ones who can do priesthood rites! The letter talks about how Christianity is superior to Judaism in various ways, for example Jesus is better than angels, and also discusses how Levite priesthood isn't actually the only game in town. There's this Melchezidek guy who Abraham paid tithes to, kind of implies he's higher up, the author say, right? And Jesus is a Melchezidek-like figure. See, it's Biblical for non-Levites to do priesthood things! (And in fact the LDS theology takes this even farther and to this day has two separate priesthood lines reflecting this, a lesser Aaronic one that does baptism and communion and the Melchezidek one that does eternal marriage and is a prerequisite to be a bishop and such, which is an interesting detail but more of a modern application)
Note however that at no point here is there the implication that it's open season, anyone perform ordinances and covenants and rituals, the somewhat spontaneous and sporadic callings of OT prophets notwithstanding. And 5:4 emphasizes this same point, that because many rituals (e.g. the day of atonement ritual on Yom Kippur) have the priest literally as a stand-in for God or Christ, not just anyone can decide to step up and play the role (v4). Jesus also didn't do this of his own accord, but in fact (v5-6) "Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him... You are a priest forever, after the order of Melcheizedek" (emphasis mine) . You are correct that in some places in Hebrews and elsewhere in the NT we are taught very specifically that the whole point of the Levite rituals (especially the scapegoat of the above ritual) was to symbolize Christ and prepare them for him, and as far as we know the Levites didn't have a particularly special role in the early Christian church, but when talking about authority more generally, Christians including Jewish converts still would have implicitly understood that authority in general is a more fundamental principle. Moreover, in v11-14 we learn that the audience has, broadly speaking, been doing a pretty bad job with the "basic principles". Foreshadowing, in my book. Far from the only time, too.
As an aside, despite my church's love for the KJV, I'm a bit of an NRSV man myself. The 2 Timothy passage starts by talking about Paul's good example worthy of emulation, but also the inevitability of persecution. Then, however...
To me it seems quite clear that the whole passage emphasizes that the source of teaching (i.e. the person(s) doing so) is very important, and is paramount in assessing its reliability. And that Scripture assists in maintaining those teachings. Thus I draw the conclusion, supported elsewhere, that the person of the teacher matters a lot when assessing doctrinal purity. Obviously, there are many passages of the scriptures encouraging teaching each other more generally, but as a few of the other passages (among others that exist too) suggest, the congregations themselves seem to have perennially done a poor job at policing their own doctrine. That's what I take away from many of the (especially Pauline) epistles, at least.
In fact there are vanishingly few people teaching fellow members who don't have some line of authority. Apollos (Acts 18) was among these odd-man-out examples, a convert to the baptism of John who is doing missionary work and who knows the scriptures really well, he gets corrected by another missionary couple ("coworkers" of Paul, elsewhere) in private, and then goes back to missionary work in the synagogue. Interestingly, no mention of internal teaching, and in fact he is later the cause of a schism in 1 Cor 1:12 (though plausibly this is not his fault)! I'm not aware of any other cases. And actually his case is illustrative - he had a pretty good, scripturally grounded understanding, he was even immediately receptive to the truth, but was still unable to independently come to the proper conclusion with scripture alone. Thus my earlier point about how despite having some major sympathy and Sola Scriptura roots the end result was clear that at some point extra revelation is needed.
It was James 1:5 after all, encouraging those who have gotten stuck to seek revelation, that was according to his account, the prompt for Joseph Smith to pray for guidance in the first place. He later found good company with many people who read things like Eph 2:20 or Eph 4:11-13 and felt that a Christian church needed apostles and prophets as a key attribute, or were dissatisfied with the Protestant status quo in other ways. It was largely these people, as far as I know, who initially converted, and honestly the church has never attracted large numbers of Catholic converts specifically. Part of the early LDS appeal was precisely to this audience of people who had gotten deep into the scriptures, and didn't see its reflection in contemporary Protestant groups.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So all of this basically hinges on the argument that Joseph Smith was a legitimate prophet, and took the line of succession with him entirely, correct?
Well of course LDS truth claims as a whole depend on Joseph Smith but the core idea of authority to me seems Biblical and pretty innate. At least in the respect that the chain of custody for priesthood is important, and that having some sort of claim to divine permission to conduct rites also shouldn’t be glossed over.
Except we strongly disagree on what Biblical actually means.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have any particular beef with the Mormons--if anything, I admire them on a cultural level. But my understanding is that the current leadership is pretty committed to burying anything that makes the faith stand out from the undifferentiated mass of non-denominational Christianity generally.
Really, writ large, the history of Mormonism has been a history of retreat from anything that made it interesting or unique. The continued existence of Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy (in remote cities across the western United States) is clear evidence that the LDS church could have survived a steadfast refusal to conform with the demands of the U.S. government on that score. But the LDS chose growth (and financial stability) over their own revealed doctrines. More recently, the church took a strong stand in favor of traditional marriage with California's "Prop 8," only to retreat almost entirely from the issue within less than a decade (about half of Mormons today approve of same sex marriage, in complete disregard for their own history and teachings). Indeed, for most of the 20th century the LDS indulged in quite a lot of blisteringly anti-Catholic rhetoric, and mocked the wearers of crosses and crucifixes ("if they shot Jesus, would you wear an AK-47 necklace?")--only to take up the cross and incorporate "holy week" into their worship services in the 21st.
Of course the Mormons are not alone in any of this; the Great Awokening has shifted the ideological landscape a lot, such that the boggling inanity of stuff like "Queers for Palestine" has become de rigueur. But the LDS church seems to be speed-running the history of Christianity in reverse, starting as a sect of innovative and progressive doctrines (open canon, anti-slavery, apotheosis, polygamy, theocracy, miracles) then gradually reverting to a blandly Protestant cultural mean (no more polygamy, replacing "translation" with "inspiration" in explanations of the Book of Abraham, literally whitewashing their own history by painting over artwork in their temples), then landing on their own implementation of an infallible papacy (in the form of a well-heeled corporation sole).
This... probably sounds more critical than I intend it to be. Mormons are as good as any, and better than many, at building communities. Their doctrines have never been any more ridiculous than those of Catholics, or Jews, or Muslims (and if a ridiculous doctrine produces a valuable outcome, is it actually ridiculous?). North America would certainly be a more interesting place today if the Rocky Mountains had become a polygamist Mormon Theocracy, as the sect once planned. But the way history is unfolding, I would expect the LDS to be culturally and theologically indistinguishable from, say, progressive-ish Methodist congregations, within a century or two. The LDS will eventually ordain women and wed gays because their open canon gives them an excuse to do so, and their demonstrated preference is for continued growth and prosperity, not adherence to revealed doctrines. Indeed, Conquest's second and third laws of politics seems to apply:
I have seen the LDS do more in the last 20 years to appease its critics than to cater to its own existing membership (or teachings!). There is a commonplace that one should have an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out. Likewise, Mormonism's open canon was in the 19th century its evident strength, but in a world of mass media and "social justice" that same open canon has become a clear organizational liability. I am skeptical that recognizably religious Mormonism can long survive the--good, even perhaps noble--intentions of its corporate leadership.
Whether that is good or bad (or matters at all) is a separate question, of course. That parousia failed to occur promptly at the turn of the millennium came as a serious blow for many apocalyptic sects--this is, I think, an underappreciated aspect of the cultural changes that have happened since. I knew so many Christians, circa 1999, who clearly harbored serious hopes, verging on expectations, that 2000, 2001 at latest, was going to be the year the heathens burned. Churches have been forced to adapt (most have failed to do so), and the Mormons are no exception. The idea that Restorationism (of which the Mormons are an important, but not unique, example) results in "far less confusion over having to litigate and reexamine each and every piece of modern practice and belief" does not, I think, hold up to the test of history.
I don't have time to respond in full--it would require a lot of research on things I don't know off the top of my head. But let me register my prediction here that the LDS church doesn't go woke so to speak. I've already bet that they're not ever going to allow gay temple sealings, and expect the same to be true for other comparably "woke" things.
Sure, we could have survived on some level, but ending polygamy isn't a fundamental betrayal of our religion the way something like ending prayer would be. If you read the proclamation ending polygamy, it pretty much explicitly says "polygamy is still doctrinal, but we're forced to discontinue it for now. It's no longer authorized." There's no doctrinal contradiction here.
The official messaging has moved in this direction, but this was always a reasonable way to interpret the word as Joseph Smith used it. He described his modifications to the Bible as a "translation" despite having no source material. A good portion of the Pearl of Great Price comes from this "translation" and includes entirely new material, not just rephrasings of Bible passages.
Generally I see the gradual softening of church messaging as consistent with the parable of the tares.
The controversial doctrine is still out there, but we try to focus on the absolute most important fundamentals--the doctrine of Christ.
More options
Context Copy link
Such a thing has already happened elsewhere within the Mormon tradition!
More options
Context Copy link
My personal observation (as an outsider who is not even particularly familiar with the LDS) is that it seems like the LDS spent a century bending over backwards to be normal and finally reached the apex of mainstream acceptance by having a member of their faith nominated for President of the United States, only for Mitt Romney to be compared to Hitler and then of course lose the election.
Setting the question of LDS theology aside, the lesson I drew from that is that you might as well be weird.
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't really possible, is it? I've been on a bit of a rabbit hole chasing down what Mormons actually think for the last few months (it's really hard to find, which is odd for a "church"), and from what I can tell their claim of even being "Christian" at all is a bit of an intentional linguistic trick.
Mormons believe in somebody they call Jesus, but they believe he was a guy who came to The United States of America about 2000 years ago and met with people living there at the time. The core of their religion is that there was a group of Jews who sailed to North America several thousand years ago, split into two groups which formed large, continent scale societies, and then went to war. There was a guy, Mormon, who wrote down some revelation on golden tablets, hid them, and then eventually an angel came to Joseph Smith in 1850 and told him where to find them.
Again, it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe. I think the mormons try to hide this on purpose because of how it comes across to people not familiar with it.
Well that's an accusation I've never heard before. Usually we hear the opposite. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. A good place to start is Mormonism 101, but churchofjesuschrist.org has essentially all of our teachings, including very esoteric stuff.
Yeah man, those links are exactly the problem that I'm talking about. Those links reference somebody with the name Jesus, but what they fail to mention is that they're talking about an entirely different person (who just happens to have the same name) as the person that Christians are talking about when they say Jesus.
Stuff like this:
https://news-gu.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mormonism-101#C8
No it isn't. There is a historical person who actually existed named Jesus, and he did not write a testament called "The Book of Mormon". This isn't a debate about theological interpretations, it is a historical fact.
It doesn't. It contains some things written by Joseph Smith in the 1830s in what he thought looked roughly like ancient egyptian.
Yes this is true, but what they're not mentioning on this page is that it was written in the 1830s by Joseph Smith.
This stuff is just frustrating to me. If you want to claim Joseph Smith as some prophet and start some new religion about it, then go for it. But just stop lying to people.
The rest of this page is the same sort of sophistic hand waving and not worth going through point by point.
I find Jesus writing a book that nobody's heard of not inherently goofier or ahistorical than rising from the dead. Or having communion wafers turn into his flesh. Of all the weird things people say about Jesus, writing a book that isn't in the historical record is nowhere near the top of the list of "things secular historians don't think are true about Jesus".
More options
Context Copy link
You asked for what we believe. That link describes what we believe. Nothing is being hidden.
Well, no, we believe they're the same person. You can argue they're not, but that's not our belief, which is what you asked for.
Yes, we agree on this. I think you misunderstand what a testament is. Jesus didn't write the New Testament either.
OK. You asked for our beliefs, you have them.
OK. It sounds like when you say "it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe" what you mean is that it's a bit tough to track down the apologetics addressing contradictory evidence. For that I'd invite you to check out https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/. Or, again, just ask me. You're not going to see every piece of evidence for and against a claim addressed in a post called "Mormonism 101".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, not quite. They believe all human souls, including that of Jesus, were begotten of God (and the Eternal Mother, whom they try not to emphasize too much and is, to avert a misunderstanding, not Mary), and not created ex nihilo. The incarnation of Jesus, in their view, was a repeat of an event that God the Father also underwent — they believe that God the Father has a physical body. The most intense thing that can be said about them is they are not classical theists. They believe all human beings are literally brothers of Christ, in that we are all exactly like him.
Their stoteriology is that the end result of human life is the full deification of human beings, which they call exaltation — not as an interior unification with the life of God, but as apotheosis in the original meaning. They believe faithful Mormons are destined to create their own worlds, to be gods of their own universes, even to conceive their own spirit children with their eternal spouses (thus celestial marriage).
It is, not only from a Nicene Christian but a broader Abrahamic perspective, incredibly odd.
Thanks, this is pretty accurate. I do have some nitpicks:
We "believe" this in the sense that it seems like the most likely explanation, but it's certainly not doctrine.
We're the same type of being as him, but definitely not exactly like him, nor capable of becoming like him without his atonement.
Yes, but I want to clarify that we never match or exceed God. He will always be our Father, our divine authority will always stem from him. At some point we hope to become perfect the way he is, which does not mean actually being equal to him. I'd compare exaltation to the relationship between the Father and the Son--the Son is not inferior in any tangible way to the Father, he's not more sinful or lacking any divine quality the Father has, yet the relationship (and reality) is one of subservience and fealty, and the Father will always be greater than the Son.
I'd go so far as to say we don't believe this, though it's a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
This is one of my nits to pick with mormons. The idea of calling Christians "Nicene" Christians, as if there is some alternative Christianity is ridiculous semantic poisoning. As far as I can tell the only people who use this term are Mormons.
Nicene Christians use the term for themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m sorry, but this just isn’t correct. I am a Nicene Christian, and I use the term as a proud self-description!
The truth is, there are alternative Christianities. Have been since the beginning. Gnosticism. Arianism. When we move further on in the history of the ecumenical councils, Nestorianism.
When I say that I’m a Nicene Christian, I mean to say that I believe the Council of Nicaea defines Christianity. I do not mince my words by saying this. I am not, by saying it, saying that there are other Christians that are just as good.
I’m happy to extend the term “Christian,” sociologically, to Mormons, as in a matter of history they obviously derived from Christianity. But I do not by saying this mean to say that I believe that they are right, that their views are correct, or even that they are acceptable. I reject strongly any view of the divine nature that is not classically theistic, and would even say that Mormons do not even worship the same conception of God as Nicene Christians do, and that very often Mormons do not engage with this with the intense seriousness it deserves, as the principle theological difference between them and Nicene Christians. They obviously find this offensive, but I believe the only way to be charitable is not to water things down in the spirit of “being inoffensive”, but by speaking the truth as I understand it.
That means giving them a point when they deserve it, not being reflexively hostile. What hostility I have towards the LDS church I have because I have earnestly engaged it in the spirit of charity and found it to be too distinct to reconcile with the beliefs I hold dear, and many of its historical claims impossible to reconcile with historical evidence. I do not believe Mormons are evil, or insincere, but I do believe they are mistaken — and gravely so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the Book Of Mormon is freely available as an audiobook on, for example, Apple Podcasts. I listened to the entirety of it, plus the whole Pearl of Great Price and a decent chunk of the Doctrine & Covenants. It’s not difficult for a layman to access these texts.
Is that so accessible, though?
You don't need to read the entire bible and all of the fan fictions to figure what Christians believe.
I doubt most people, even people who know lots of mormons know that "We actually think that Jesus came to America, and that there were several large lost civilizations of Jews who sailed here in 500BC" is what The Book of Mormon is actually about.
I didn’t need to read the entire Book Of Mormon to know that, either. You can even read just some small selections of it to get the gist of their theology, much as you can with the Bible.
Like, all of this is Google-able, Wiki-able, etc. Unless there’s some secret esoteric Mormonism going on in deep catacombs hidden not only from the public but also from run-of-the-mill members of the church — which I suppose we can’t rule out — none of the important doctrines of the church are remotely hidden from any curious outsider who is curious enough to access them. (Plus, you know, the church famously sends thousands of missionaries to publicly proselytize the faith.)
To the extent that most non-Mormons know almost nothing about the church’s theological claims is simply downstream of the fact that most human beings are profoundly incurious about other religions — particularly ones which they perceive as low-status. Hindus aren’t secretive about their beliefs, either, it’s just that almost no non-Hindus ever ask them about it, and would find a brief description befuddling.
There are plenty of things to criticize about the LDS church if one is so inclined, but “they’re hiding their beliefs from the public” is not one of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think a lot of that is actually fair criticism, the last decade and a half has been sort of bland. Heck, we went from three hour church (!) to two, for example. Apart from one issue - the church was pretty big on its Family Proclamation which is not quite scripture but close, so that limits in a pretty practical way how far left it can drift, especially socially. That one can’t really be walked back. Plus, probably the next prophet is going to be Oaks, who is among the more conservative members, though he was a lawyer and judge by trade, so he’s also pretty careful with his wording.
To be precise my actual hope is that in my lifetime one of the leaders of the church busts out yet another book of translated ancient scripture, or something equally and delightfully abnormal. Failing that, another possible route I’d love to see is for us to become more aggressively focused on helping the poor or something similar. We are already slightly out of step as somewhat anti-Trump and pro-immigration, but the church is still pretty apolitical overall, so it’s hard to say how many waves we will make. The church is in a bit of a weird spot where you’d expect based on the demographics and educational levels for us to be more liberal than we are, but neither do we make perfect bedfellows with the more ebullient evangelicals, where no such increased rapport has occurred like with the Catholics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're doing the classical Protestant thing of elevating Saint Paul above even the Gospels. Paul is not and never was the successor of Peter.
Good catch, not my intention, and interestingly enough doctrinally I do believe Peter James and John had something special Paul did not. It’s just that we don’t have a whole lot from Peter doing major doctrinal correction like Paul, and obviously it’s hard to know if that is because he simply didn’t, or we just don’t have more letters showing it. The exact extent of Paul’s authority is a fascinating question that I don’t think I have a fully satisfying answer to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's quite obvious to me that the biggest problem is the Great Schism of 1054, where the patriarch of Rome decided he was better than the rest of the Church, based on specious reading of scripture.
Can you expound upon where the Great Schism of 1054 was Rome going off the rails? Because this is how Catholics see it:
From here, I have done some formatting because gosh that's a wall of text with names no one's heard about before.
Distilling down the barest essentials:
Patriarch of Constantinople declares, based on a document written by a local theologian, that Roman disciplines of consecrating unleavened bread and fasting on Saturday are horrible and disqualifying from being a member of the Church. They go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist in Roman churches.
Pope sends delegation that explains to the theologian how they are wrong, and that this ancient practice of the Latin Church is not disqualifying or heretical. Patriarch refuses to even see them.
Once it becomes clear that the Patriarch's side isn't going to win, he excommunicates the Pope. The papal legates excommunicate the Patriarch using the authority they have from the Pope (except at this time, unbeknownst to them, the Pope is dead so the excommunication isn't even valid on the Latin side, which was discovered shortly after).
Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.
This is the version I have always heard. Specifically, the Patriarch excommunicates the legates, not the Patriarch of Rome. Which is a crucial distinction:
From https://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism#cite_note-Cross-1.
This is another major issue which... is pretty unambiguously the fault of the See of Rome.
While I'm sure there are a ton of small historical details you can quibble about, to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong. That being said, I try to be ecumenical and I do hope that the Church can become whole again one day. We'll see!
Politically or theologically?
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
I can't say for certain if the Papal Legates were on their best behavior or not in Constantinople. It seems like there are many sources and sides to the story, all of them undoubtedly biased.
Fortunately, what I can say is none of that matters as far as whether one should be Catholic or Orthodox. The question of if I should be Catholic or Orthodox is a theological question. Is there theological basis for Roman Primacy? I believe the answer is "Yes." I believe that the answer has been yes, and was demonstrably so even before the Synod of Chalcedon.
I would love for us to heal the schism. From Rome's perspective I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy. We already have many Eastern Catholic Churches that have a multiplicity of different views and practices. We see the Orthodox as having valid Holy Orders and sacraments.
Both of the churches were wrong politically in many ways - I'll be honest I haven't done a full accounting of the details as I frankly don't have the time or inclination. Part of my decision is based on looking at the 'spirit' of both churches today, and since the schism. Another part is just the fact that Rome essentially took what was an overall democratic church, and demanded to have sole power over all of Christendom. Those two things together are strong evidence from my perspective that Rome was in the wrong.
Frankly I think even the 5 sees being somehow more "legitimate" than other churches is a bit suss, although I'll say that I'm definitely a Nicene Christian.
See, this is the problem! Basically the entire schism comes down to Rome asserting primacy that is not apostolic! You can't just say "we want to end the argument, you just have to give in to all of my demands that actually matter to you" and expect it to work.
More options
Context Copy link
If you’re interested in an Orthodox perspective that offers a grounded, non-triumphalist take on how the Orthodox view Papal primacy in the first millennium, I strongly recommend Laurent Cleenewerck’s His Broken Body. I recommend it both to Catholic and to Orthodox readers — he refuses to stump for either side, and deals frankly, and charitably, with the patristic evidence. He’s clearly someone for whom the schism is a wound, not an amputation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the antipopes in the 12 century should have been a clue. There’s no way that you could have tge head of the church be a single person with a direct line back to Peter, then have entire centuries in which there are two and sometimes three claimants to that title.
The Avignon papacy was resolved with the declaration of which line was the true one.
No, it wasn't? They changed which line was the official one in the 20th century.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean yes, but after the fact. If you’d lived in the era of antipopes, that doesn’t resolve the issue of whose rulings are the infallible ones or which hierarchy actually has succession.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Luckily the Eastern Orthodox, with a variety of Patriarchs, don't have this problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link