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 -
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.
No big surprises there :) There's a reason more books have been written about the Bible than any other topic!
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 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.
The best claim to Mormons being Christian is the everyday practical reality of being Mormon. At night you pray to “God the Father”. You ask for forgiveness of sins, something you believe is only possible through the sacrifice of “Jesus Christ”, and a request you believe is mandatory to receive “salvation”. I mean if you had to pick like ONE thing that defines Christianity, wouldn’t you say that it’s more or less exactly this thing? Either you think Jesus died for your sins, or not?
Also, gosh, you can go to the literal official website, not even the one dedicated to explaining our beliefs, and whaddaya know, right there on the front page is a section "What We Believe", with the first link in the section "Learn About Jesus Christ". Clicking this link contains such totally heretical (/s) topics such as:
Jesus’s Divine Mission
His Ministry Gave Us the Perfect Example
His Teachings Show Us the Way to Salvation
His Sacrifice Means You Can Live with God
Jesus Made Forgiveness Possible
Because of Jesus We Will Live Again Someday
You Can Follow Jesus
If you wanted details, although it's dated in a literal sense, Joseph Smith wrote out exactly an answer to this question ("What do you believe?") in 1842 and we call them today the Articles of Faith which are relatively succinct and also has the advantage of doubling as a primary source.
On a more practical level, i.e. wondering what modern practice is like, I would direct you toward the resource Gospel Principles which has 47 chapters and honestly? Having both read through it and taught lessons from it, I personally consider it the perfect balance of succinct and descriptive for probably 95% of all purposes, as well as quite honest. I'd be extremely surprised it if missed even a single notable modern doctrine or practice, because for many years it was the basis for the first year of lessons for recent converts, so there's obviously not much reason to "hide" anything there, because most of the people using the book were already baptized members. The book is also extremely careful of its wording, and contains some handy scripture (Bible and otherwise) references that offers some further clarification
What do you think Lehi did in approximate 600BC?
What do you think Joseph smith did in approximately 1830?
Who is Moroni? What did Moroni do in relation to Joseph smith?
What did Jesus do after his resurrection? Did he come to America? Who did he interact with here?
Who are the nephites? Who are the Lamanites?
Who wrote the narrative in the Book of Mormon? Who wrote the pearl of great price?
The reason that Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian, the reason that Mormons try to hide their beliefs, and the reason for things like trying to rename the church, or imply some sort of “latter day saints movement”, instead of just another example of the charismatic religious movement (there were MANY of these in the 1800s), is revealed in the answers to these questions.
Mormons should do whatever they want, I don’t have a problem with them, my frustration is the linguistic poisoning at the center of the religion. If Mormons were simply honest and upfront about what they believe, then cool, but they aren’t. It’s the same as men insisting they’re woman and instead of saying “I am a man who dresses and acts like a woman”, they say that they are women, and try to poison the language.
And I’m not saying that Christian beliefs aren’t also strange to an outsider. “I believe a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago” probably sounds just as crazy to a non Christian as “I believe a lost tribe of Israel sailed to America in 600BC, then hid some golden plates in up state New York, and eventually revealed them to a guy named Joseph Smith in 1830 who used them to make himself the central figure of a new religions”.
The difference is that Christians don’t try to hide this stuff. Mormons aren’t Christians in the same way that Muslims aren’t Christians and Christians aren’t Jews. The fact that Mormons are campaigning to convince people to call them “Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” instead of “Mormons” is dishonest on its face.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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".
Yeah I think that for me, and many other Mormon-skeptical Christians, the truth claims of Joseph Smith and his status as a prophet are the big breaking points. It seems @Stellula is stuck on the same place.
That's fair, but getting something wrong isn't the same as keeping it secret. I'm happy to debate the truth claims (sometimes... it's quite time-consuming) but first we have to agree that they're truth claims, not lies concealing what Mormons actually believe.
Fair point! I do think that Mormons are relatively up front about things at least from my interactions. I disagree but haven't personally seen a lot of dishonesty, just focus on the more 'normal' parts. Which every religion does, hah.
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
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.
Which is what had me gritting my teeth about a Mormon blithely chiming in about the doctrinal inconsistency within Catholicism, but like I said, this kind of debate has all the potential to get very nasty very fast, so I should shut up now.
That was me. Looking back I made my point pretty clumsily and also in poor taste, given especially how it came across as a "dunk" or something, so for that again I apologize. The point I was trying to make was the one that was drawn out a little bit better later about how Tradition - at least to some extent - forces Catholicism to treat potential changes to Tradition with more seriousness than other religions might, with my own as a bit of an extreme example. It wasn't my intent to focus on the alleged inconsistencies as much as to comment on how from the outside alleged inconsistencies seemed like theoretically kind of a big deal for Catholics. I appreciate Oracle's replies and your own self-control both in that respect.
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 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.
You kind of do, though, to some extent, at least for the kind of standards you're hinting at.
I mean, since we're already talking about Catholics, you could plausibly say the same thing there, no? Maybe less so for non-denominationals, but most churches have some history or niche beliefs that might be relevant to "actual beliefs". It's my understanding that a potential Catholic convert (who, by your own standards, would need to spend years of time on historical research to find out what they "really believe") is expected to spend about six months going through a catechumen. That doesn't sound too crazy or too unusual. LDS baptismal standards vary across region, but the overall new convert experience from baptism to what you might call a "full member" is mandated to last at least one full year.
And if you read the Book of Mormon, which is basically mandatory for those wanting to be baptized, exactly what you describe is found in the Introduction right in front of you... where even a quick skim would quickly demonstrate several factual errors in your summarization. I mean, if you call the literal introduction to a mandatory and fundamental text of the entire religion "hidden" I have no idea what to tell you other than that's not what the word means.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
There's a little bit of esoteric Mormonism hidden from members, but the trick is that the hiding spot isn't "underground", it's "the past". E.g. run-of-the-mill members of the church mostly eventually get to see the (officially-)secret present-day temple ceremonies, but their only access to previous ceremony versions is via the same "look at leaked copies or recordings" (or a wiki summary?) method as any member of the general public.
Well, the hiding spot is "the past" for most members, at least. I'd presume that at some level non-run-of-the-mill members get to see official records of previous ceremony versions, but that's just me trying to be charitable, because alternatives like "the Prophet isn't supposed to see all his church's past" or "he's just supposed to trust Wikipedia if he gets curious" would seem worse.
For what it's worth, I totally agree with you on the temple ceremony thing (though very specifically for members who have already experienced the modern version), and have been censored on faithful reddit forums for even suggesting faithful members consider looking at them. That could plausibly change in the future, but who knows. At that point anyways it's a little... I mean I dunno, almost not a big deal however, in the sense that assuming for a second the LDS faith is true, then the most one would gain from looking at the past would be more insights for the present? And if you believe, then doctrine says the most recent version is all you really need for salvation and exaltation, so there's no major downside.
In a more general sense of talking about the past, although the LDS faith did go through a low-key phase of "don't talk about it", the Joseph Smith Papers Project has done a pretty excellent job of surfacing plenty of stuff for interested members and non-members alike in the historical record, credit where credit is due.
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 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.
See, that's not clear to me that this is the schism! For me, I think I'm asking that the East just goes back to believe about the Roman Pontiff the same things they believed before the 800s. Even Photius and Cerularius, the critical players in the East-West schism, never argued that the Petrine doctrine could justify schism.
For example of a Pope exercising primacy:
Before Sergius died, in 638, he assembled a great Synod at Constantinople, which accepted a "one will" formula as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching." This synod was without any Papal legates nor did it receive Papal approval afterwards. The outcome of this council is not considered infallible or orthodox.
Subsequent Popes and Patriarchs rejected Monothelitism (with one Pope refusing to confirm Paul as Patriarch of Constantinople until after he stopped using the "one will" formula), but there was still some confusion about if Jesus had "one operation" or "two operations."
To clear all this up, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to the General Council in Constantinople in 680. The legates brought with them a letter in which the Pope defined the "two wills, two operations" terminology with authority as the successor of St. Peter, binding the council to accept. The council did and rejected the Monothelites.
That seems to me like the Pope undoubtedly exercising Primacy and the East recognizing this. I can point to dozens of other examples of the Pope settling disputes among various other Apostolic Sees, like when Dennis of Alexandria was accused of heresy, he appealed to Rome and was cleared. Let's look at a council document:
To me, the source of the schism is the liturgical intolerance exhibited by the Byzantine Greeks towards Latin customs and usages. In every council document and story of the schism that I see, that is the primary difficulty that starts the argument. Even Photius admitted to Papal Supremacy in his letters to Rome, when he is appealing to Rome to help his case.
Instead, arguments about Papal Supremacy seem to be ad hoc justification, because the best reason not to be in communion with the Pope would be something like a lack of agreement on the Petrine doctrine. But that wasn't the actual disagreement.
The Eastern Orthodox would basically say the same thing - that Roman Catholics need to go back to believing what they believed about the Pope before the 800s or so for there to be a reunion.
The Orthodox would grant the Pope primacy, but for the Orthodox that means a position of honor as the first among equals. The Pope would not have direct universal jurisdiction over the whole church and could not alter dogma, as he did neither of those things prior to (the lead-up to) the schism. Yes, the Eastern bishops would at times appeal to Rome as a neutral arbiter in their various disputes, but at the Ecumenical Councils did everyone just defer to the Pope? (at some he was barely involved) Did all the apostles just defer to St. Peter? St. Paul resisted him "to his face". The Council of Jerusalem was not decided by St. Peter and was presided over by St. James (if you want to go all the way back).
I think from the Orthodox perspective what you are leaving out about the schism is that the Roman Catholics made an addition to the Creed. The Creed was set by the Ecumenical Councils. No bishop has the authority to alter doctrine set by the Ecumenical Councils on his own, let alone enforce that alteration on the whole church. This is where the heart of the issue is for the Orthodox.
The Council of Rimini in 359 had over 400 bishops in attendance. This council produced and agreed to the Arian formulas that, "the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures" and "the Son is not a creature like other creatures." Pope Liberius recognized this as an attempt from Arians to lead to statements that Jesus is not God Begotten and rejected the council. Many who signed the council documents then repudiated it. In view of the lack of approbation by the Holy See, it had no universal authority. We see Papal Authority define dogma, superseding the findings of a council of over 400 bishops from the East and West.
Papal primacy does not require the Pope to be always correct, to never be resisted, or for him to be involved with every dispute. However, for there to be a teaching out of a Council that is binding on the whole Church, it does require the acceptance of the Successor of Peter. Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem, even if he's not the one who wrote the Council documents he set the tone and James promulgated it:
I think most people don't understand that the Catholic Church does not make claims that the Pope is always correct or that he can just make up a new doctrine. The claim is not that the Pope is the one who has to call each council or determine the final council documents. We don't want the Orthodox to believe anything like that. We would just like for the same position of honor that was held in the past, because that is the road to unity instead of division.
Prior to the last 50 years or so there wasn't much discussion between the East and the West, and lots of misconceptions flourished. We didn't have as clear communication as we have now. The Petrine Doctrine is not the cartoon that (some) Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants act like it is.
That's because Dag said Catholics went off the rails in 1054, which is after the Filioque controversy. I would argue that the Filioque controversy is another instance of the East being intolerant towards Latin customs and usages.
Rome has never asked the East to say the words in their Creed. Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the Filioque. The East grew upset that the West created a new translation of the Latin text for internal Latin use.
The trouble with the Filioque is that, in Latin, there is no obvious difference between Spirate and Generate. In Greek it is clearer. The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.
But if the persons of the Trinity are only distinct in relation to each other, and there is no distinction in the Latin Creed, then the Latins risk falling into heresy that either the Son and Spirit are the same or that there are differences in the Trinity that are not relational. In the Latin Church, the formulation "From the Father and the Son" has ancient roots, far older than the schism. Tertullian, Jereome, Ambrose, and Augustine all used this formula.
What about Ephesus I canon 7? Didn't that say that no other creed than the one promulgated at the First Council of Nicaea should be used? If that's the case, the East is in as much trouble as the West here. Because the creed from the First Council of Nicea isn't the one you say at your Divine Liturgy. Both the East and the West use the creed from the First Council of Constantinople. Take a look here, which do you use?
Ephesus I Canon 7 wasn't actually considered a part of the universal deposit of faith. Ephesus I canons 7 and 8 are omitted in some collections of canons and the collection of Dionysius Exiguus omitted all the Ephesus I canons. At the time, it was not held that they concerned the Church as a whole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was a time when the pope was basically chosen by italians only, but with the elections today, is there really a relevant way in which Rome is asserting primacy here, if the doctrinal points are compatible? It seems to me that the church would be "overall democratic" either way - its rather about more vs less centralisation.
The Pope is just the Bishop of Rome. There's no position available for "The Pope but not the Bishop of Rome."
The Bishop of Rome can only be elected by bishops in his rite. Eastern Catholic rites do not participate in the election of the Pope.
Nobody on either side of the debate wishes to force all Orthodox to change to the Latin rite. That would not be worth the fraction of political power gained by sending a cardinal to the conclave.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean Rome as the patriarchal seat, compared to the rest of the pentarchy. (i.e. the Orthodox church.)
So, if Rome got a separate bishop, and the pope was only head of the catholic church, that would resolve the issue? I would be surprised if its that easy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I was taught the Schism by a Ukranian Byzantine Catholic who didn't present it as a "Rome was always right" point of view, who clearly felt the wound deeply, but still felt like union was more important than our disagreements.
More options
Context Copy link
I'll have to check that out. I recently read Two Paths by Michael Whelton. He presents things in a fairly detached and non-triumphalist way, but his final judgement reflects the fact that he is a Catholic who became Orthodox. A Catholic response to some of his points would be interesting to read, but another Orthodox perspective that a current Catholic recommends might also be a good way to "fact check" him.
A fair warning that, though he analyzes the patristic evidence powerfully and fairly, he also has a unique model of catholicity that he sees as the bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. He at times presents this as the "Orthodox view of ecclesiology," but I'm given to understand that it's more of a minority view. But still, I found his views on ecclesiology irresistible.
And, to be clear, I am not a current Catholic, nor have I ever been received into the Catholic Church. I believed firmly in Catholicism for a long time, and the priest who worked with me was happy to receive me, but I backed away because of issues of conscience with some Catholic doctrines, and personal struggles with sin -- as well as, to be blunt, utter confusion as to what Catholicism precisely was in a post-conciliar world.
I had a similar experience with Orthodoxy -- the "intellectual evangelical convert" in my narrative wasn't a caricature, but actually myself, and my mother and my girlfriend indeed accompanied me to liturgy a few times and didn't like it. My struggles with Orthodoxy were not so much about doctrines I could not assent to, but about doctrines that were load-bearing in my Christian faith, like the principle of "faith seeking understanding", the concept of inherited fallenness and separation from God (original sin), the importance of divine justice, and the reality of Hell as a place of separation from God (and tragically suffering), being hard to reconcile with the Eastern Orthodox approach especially post-Romanides.
I would argue that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy underwent a severe and belief-altering ressourcement in the 60s, and that has brought them closer in some ways -- every time I read Catholic theologians talking about paschal mystery theology, they sound very Orthodox to me -- but also separated them, injecting polemic where there might have been agreement. While I agree with Orthodox reservations about De Trinitate and believe his works must be understood extremely carefully, I hold St. Augustine to be a great saint, and a personal patron, and the view among some Orthodox that outright denies his sanctity or experience of divine grace is unnecessary and offensive.
I do not believe the West is the author of heresies, as many of Orthodoxy's greatest writers do, and I believe reason in religion to be, not the enemy of divine illumination, but a means of illumination that opens the mind to be receptive to divine grace by teaching how truly deep "the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God" are, in the words of the apostle. I worry sincerely that Eastern Orthodoxy often collapses into a kind of quietism that does not reflect the serious philosophical and theological capacity for thought I see in the fathers of the Church.
I've tried not to present myself as a Catholic, but a "mere Christian," defending views that I believe represent Christianity at its fullness, but this often means I defend Catholic doctrine because, to be blunt, I agree with it as a matter of theology. At the very least, my goal is that Catholicism is described fairly, as I believe Catholics deserve a fair hearing and don't always get it.
But, to make a long story short, this hopefully answers @TheDag's question as well: I am a committed Chalcedonian Christian, but too rationalist, cataphatic, and "western" for Eastern Orthodoxy, too sacramental and synergistic for Protestantism, and too, well, insufficiently totalizingly Marian for Catholicism. I am a wanderer in the wilderness, or taking refuge in "the hallway," in the words of C.S. Lewis, as from a storm prepared to blow away the house built upon sand.
Hah very dramatic but that’s okay I’m a weird Orthodox guy too. There’s plenty of room for us in the Church imo.
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry I assumed your denomination! What you say about Whelton's take on ecclesiology is intriguing, and I'll have to look further into it. I don't remember anything he said on the matter striking me as potentially incorrect, but then I come out of the OCA which tends to follow St. Vladimir's Seminary and thus the tradition of the Paris school that was a big part of the ressourcement you, I think correctly, identify.
I agree that Augustine is unnecessarily vilified. He is a great saint of the church (in my parish he is one of the great hierarchs depicted on the apse). With some nuance, I think Orthodox and Catholic ideas about original sin could be reconciled. There are unhelpful polemics by both sides, and the Orthodox often end up attacking something more like the Calvinist understanding. I was recently reading this piece which definitely "problematizes" a simplistic view of things.
I am not a big fan of what I know of Romanides, and I have always had a view of Heaven and Hell that is very C.S. Lewis (though maybe something like The Great Divorce is not juridical enough for you?). I definitely believe that Christ will return as Judge, and I am not a Universalist (we can hope, perhaps, but I reject certainty on this question). In general, I tend to be fairly apophatic about the next life and can tolerate ambiguity on the details. How far does that put me from the central Orthodox belief? I am not sure. I don't know if you ever had the stomach for Lord of Spirits (I have to listen on 2x speed), but the content of their episode on Hell/Universalism (What in Tarnation) is pretty good, and my beliefs would fit within their framework.
I agree that some Orthodox thinkers (polemicists?) are too negative when it comes to "Western reason", but the idea that the Eastern fathers were against reason or that modern Orthodox theologians and thinkers are not philosophically sophisticated can also be a caricature of the East. You may or may not have heard of Dr. Nathan Jacobs, but I've recently been following his exploration of the philosophy of the Eastern Fathers. My take would be that the East is skeptical of systematic theologies that are Rationalist/Cartesian projects, but this is probably unfair to nuanced Western thought (I love me some Paschal, for instance).
Enjoyed hearing about your story and your general thoughts! I'm glad I finally have something I am an "expert" in (my own theological thoughts and opinions) that I can share with The Motte by responding to you.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link