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 find the attempt to define what a Christian is to be rather impossible. Think of it this way. For example, you could say that Mormons are not Christians because they do not follow the Nicene Creed. But I would guess that the majority of 1st century Christians did not follow the Nicene Creed either. We cannot even be sure if Jesus or Paul believed in the tenets of the Nicene Creed. Yet surely if Jesus was not a Christian, then no-one ever has been.
Jesus and Paul both believed that God was The Universal Prime Mover, that is: there is nothing before God. He set the universe in motion. Mormons do not believe this, but rather that God was a human that lived in an existing universe, and through good works ascended to God status.
Is "God was a human that lived in an existing universe, and through good works ascended to God status" actually the belief of the average modern Mormon, though?
I would imagine so? This is a pretty unambiguous teaching which is routinely affirmed by their leadership.
What? No it's not, none of that is unambiguous teaching at all, let alone "routinely affirmed". AFAIK the last significant comment on this was nearly twenty years ago and was pretty much as ambiguous as it gets.
The "through good works" part in particular is totally wrong. As far as I know that has never been taught by any LDS leaders. We don't believe in works generally, not the way others would like us to.
What are the parts of Christianity that Mormons believe were missing for 1800 years?
Which differences would you accept as “yes these actually are the different beliefs we have”, that were so important that an angel had to come to upstate New York in the 1800s and reveal them to Joseph smith?
I could list a few very important differences of belief. The nature of God certainly doesn't count among them, both because it's not nearly important enough and because it's not even official LDS doctrine. As @MadMonzer says the most important thing is the restoration of priesthood authority. Related to that, I'll add:
Some less important differences that I personally find very significant:
You said the whole "God was once a man" thing was "a pretty unambiguous teaching which is routinely affirmed by their leadership." This is just wrong. It's not that I don't accept that as a different belief we have, it's just obviously wrong to anyone who knows what they're talking about. Given that I've corrected you on one single point of doctrine, it's hardly time to get on your high horse with this implication that I'm pretending there are no differences between LDS doctrine and broader Christian doctrine.
edit: I want to be clear that I enjoy this type of back and forth, but only if you do. I'm not trying to demean anybody here, I just enjoy this type of sparring. I still think the people who jumped on the "mormons are not Christian" thing immediately after (now 4) people were killed are bad people. If you want to keep arguing because you also think it's fun, then all good, but please don't take any of this as me wanting to attack you, or other mormons. If you want to know my feelings: I consider you guys brothers, and think that a lot of what the mormon church has done from a strategic and organizational perspective is impressive and something I wish my own church would take notes on, but I also think that the book of mormon is very obviously a hoax from a creative young man in 1800s upstate New York. From talking to mormons, I see a lot of overlap in the implementation of Christian philosophy, especially the emphasis on the importance of doing good work, with my own, Catholic beliefs. I think that's good. Okay I hope I've been reassuring enough that I don't mean any of this in bad spirit, just because I enjoy the game:
It seems like you’re claiming there really aren’t many differences.
Then why the need for the entire project? And if so many core theological beliefs of Mormons just eventually get erased out, as the “god was once a man” did in 1997 or so, then what is the point of any of it?
By the way, I think this is a good thing. Mormon beliefs like black people lesser-than (or in some cases outright demons), everybody getting their own planet, Kolob, polygamy, etc. are all things which I think are wrong, and all thinks which the Mormon leaders have later discovered that they think are wrong too.
They also seem like things a teenager in the 1800s in upstate New York would make up as part of a fantasy universe.
As far as the literal truth of the Book of Mormon: there’s obviously a ton of problems here. Horses not existing in pre Colombian America, for instance. Jews not sailing from the Levant to North America in ~600BC for another.
You're getting most of your details wrong. "God was once a man" was never a "core theological belief" nor arguably an LDS belief at all. Nobody ever taught we get our own planet. We don't believe Jews sailed to North America around 2000 BC, we believe Israelites sailed there on at least two separate occasions around 600 BC, another unrelated group of people (not Israelites) thousands of years earlier, and probably other groups besides.
What's so objectionable about Kolob, given that God has a body? You bring it up as an example of a thing you think is wrong, but it looks to me more like an example of a thing you think is weird.
Name one core theological belief of Mormons that eventually got erased out. I'm not aware of any.
We can go through the laundry list of apologetics. It would be a long debate and I'd be reticent to do it with someone much better-informed and more intellectually honest than you have been. Suffice to say that the archeological consensus on this is not nearly as definitive as you'd think, and the details we have been able to verify (those that take place in known locations in the Middle East) have proven surprisingly accurate.
The doctrinal differences are real and significant, but the church wasn't restored to bring back doctrine; it was restored to bring back priesthood authority and organization. This would still have been necessary even if there were no fundamental disagreements about things like the Nicene Creed or infant baptism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Valid Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and the teachings about the essential nature of those priesthoods required to transmit them effectively by laying on hands. (In all Christian denominations with ordination, ordination only works if both minister and ordinand know what they are doing.)
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
Is Christ himself a follower of Christ? It seems like a bad case to build your definition on.
The point of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, at any rate, is to clarify and define the apostolic faith, particularly in order to draw clear lines that include the orthodox and exclude heretics. Obviously Jesus himself didn't know the Nicene Creed in its exact terms, but considering that the Creed is defined in particular reference to Jesus' life, words, and death, I think it's reasonable to say there's some relationship between him and the Creed?
In any case, as regards Mormonism specifically, the point is that when we talk about 'historical' or 'orthodox' Christianity, we talk about a large community or set of communities which has defined its belief in particular ways. Creeds are among the various tools that the church has used to do this. It is, I think, objectively the case that Mormonism exists outside of these historical definitions. Mormons themselves would accept this - Mormons believe that there was a great apostasy that led to pretty much the entire Christian world falling into error and unbelief.
When I say "Mormons aren't Christians", what I mean is that Mormon beliefs are outside of and contradictory to historical definitions of orthodoxy. We can dispute the exact words appropriate to describe that situation - non-Christian, heretic, unorthodox, heck if you ask a Mormon they might prefer 'restoration' or something - but I think the words point to a real fact about the world.
But I think if you called Mormons heretics people would have less issue. I certainly would. It seems silly to exclude Mormons when their service are so essentially American and Protestant and they were just one of many sects to come of the great awakening with a founder and a new theology but those groups are generally referred to as Christians.
Well, I don't think that being American has anything to do with anything, and imitating the form of a Protestant worship service doesn't seem relevant to me either? Unitarian Universalists are non-Christian. Sunday Assembly are non-Christian. At some point Christianity has to be about what a person believes.
Well but they celebrate the Eucharist, sing hymns, pray to Jesus, worship Jesus, put up Christmas trees, study the Bible for moral lessons, the content as well is virtually the same if you don't notice some of the books have different titles. It's not just the form is the same but the content as well. And the different scriptures thing while taken farther isn't really that unique. Protestants, Catholics and the Ethiopian Orthodox all have different scriptures. Their canon isn't the same. Catholics have Popes and Saints and pray to Mary, which Protestants don't. I agree Mormons fall outside modern Ecumenical orthodoxy. But I don't think their practices or even beliefs are farther apart then Catholics are from Protestants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Every Christian who professes the Nicene Creed does so because they do know that Jesus professed its tenets. If we didn't believe that we wouldn't profess it.
If you didn't believe that you wouldn't profess it, but how do you know that Jesus agreed with it? I'm no New Testament scholar, but from what I've read from it, I don't see how it would be possible to be sure that Jesus actually agreed with it.
The entire Christian religion is predicated on the assumption that Jesus would have agreed with it.
More options
Context Copy link
Would it help to go through the Creed line by line?
It seems pretty clear that Jesus believed in one God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Did Jesus believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father? Jesus does not offer a programmatic Christology in the gospels, unless you want to go fairly deep into John, but even in the synoptics it seems fair to say that Jesus identifies himself with the Father in a profoundly intimate way, even if he does not spell it out in these terms.
Did Jesus believe that he came down from heaven for us and for our salvation? That seems pretty clear in the gospels - he talks about the Son of Man coming to save sinners. Did he believe he was born of the virgin Mary? Well, certainly he knew who his mother was, though depending on which gospel you read some might argue about the virgin birth. If we accept the Resurrection at all, presumably Jesus believed that he was crucified and rose again and ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father, and in the gospels Jesus mentions the future coming of the Son of Man and judgement of the nations plenty of times.
Did Jesus believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life? Jesus doesn't talk about the Spirit that explicitly outside of the gospel of John, though he does mention the Spirit a few times. I'm happy to give this one a check though I'll admit that a lot of things are a bit hazier if you don't accept John.
Did Jesus believe that the Spirit spoke through the prophets? That one's easy. In one holy catholic and apostolic church? He does talk about the church or the community of his disciples a bit in the synoptics - I think that counts. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, absolutely, if we accept the Great Commission as historical. That was his idea to begin with. And the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come - yes, Jesus is recorded arguing in favour of those beliefs.
It seems like most of it is pretty safe. If you're interested in the quest for the historical Jesus and you're skeptical of the gospels, especially John but also to an extent Luke (for the virgin birth), you might question whether Jesus believed most of this, but if you do accept the gospels (and surely Christians do), the Nicene Creed seems quite consistent with how Jesus described himself and his Father. It is sometimes more specific or explicit than Jesus himself was, but that doesn't seem fatal to me.
But then why are Mormons not Christians in your view? Granted I don't know much about their views, but from the little I know, it doesn't seem more different from the Nicene Creed than Matthew 24's Jesus quote: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Because I think that historically the Christian community has defined and policed its boundaries in ways that place Mormons outside of it - I apologise if that was not clear.
Did they police the boundaries of Christianity that way? Or the boundaries of heresy and orthodoxy that way?
Surely the whole point of heresy, as a category, is to declare something non-Christian.
No that's why there is a distinction between heretic and heathen. A heretic is someone who goes about worshiping Jesus in the wrong way a heathen doesn't worship him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's actually fairly common in many religious based homeschool groups to write out mandatory statements of faith that exclude members of the LDS faith, so yes, several protestant groups do gatekeep them out. Of course, my family left one such group when we figured out their history curriculum was littered with references on how the evil Romanists ruined things in history...
More options
Context Copy link
Fair enough. I've probably underestimated the degree to which Mormon theology differs from mainstream Christian theology, cause of how much Mormons and mainstream Christians in the US at least largely seem to me to behave the same and live very similar lifestyles. Maybe I'm not aware of differences in lifestyles, either.
Over the last fifty years or so, Mormons have also made a concerted effort to rehabilitate their image. Mormons used to be widely hated in America, and in turn they explicitly held that all non-Mormon society and especially religion is corrupted and of darkness. Since then Mormons themselves have softened a lot on the supposedly apostate Christian churches, and made a big effort to present themselves as friendly, respectable, and trustworthy - to the extent that nowadays they have a reputation for being clean-cut and nice to an almost Stepford-esque degree.
I'm in Australia, not America, but anecdotally all of my in-person interactions with Mormons have been incredibly polite, and the Mormons have almost been falling over themselves to emphasise, "We're just like you, we believe in Jesus too, Jesus is at the absolute centre of our faith, we have so much in common", and they never bring up any disagreements. That's probably why I overcompensate a little in return, as I want to make clear that I do not consider them to hold the same faith that I do.
I'm probably also biased because, while all my in-person interactions with Mormons have been friendly and kind (and I don't argue "you're not Christians" to their faces, out of politeness), I have also been close friends with a number of ex-Mormons, typically people raised Mormon who got away as an adult, and that has acquainted me with a lot of horror stories from the inside. I'm sure that former Mormons aren't exactly the most impartial people either, but I am at least aware that the sunny, white-picket-fence version of Mormonism is not the most fair representation either.
I'm also conscious that most of those ex-Mormons have had the very idea of Christianity poisoned for them, or loaded with so much negative affect by the way the idea of Jesus is linked with their (frequently abusive or borderline-abusive) Mormon upbringing, that there is no longer any chance of them approaching Christianity on other terms. I don't hold this against them - the Catholics have a concept of 'psychological impossibility' that I find useful, and I applaud the way these friends have been able to find and explore spirituality on other terms - but I can't help being angry at the tradition that did that to them. Matthew 18:6-7. I try not to let that bias me too much - every tradition will have some practitioners who are so fanatical as to be abusive, or to poison the entire tradition, we all know about Protestants or Catholics who are this extreme - but I can't in good conscience deny that the anger is there.
This is my tension with the LDS as well -- the "we're just like you" thing backfires for me, not because I think Mormons are bad people, but because I think it waters down -- quite literally, "milk before meat" -- the elements of Mormonism as a theological tradition in ways that make it genuinely less interesting. A lot of the wild cosmological speculations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are really really interesting, really unique, really cool. It just is slightly frustrating when the things that are so distinctive about Mormonism are downplayed.
It very much is like Catholics watering down the cultus of the saints or transubstantiation -- this is your thing, guys, this is what makes you unique, this is what distinguishes you from your competitors in the marketplace of ideas and makes me want to learn more. I think attempts at Protestantizing both faiths weakens them: the only way the Papacy or the Presidency can survive as an institution is by offering unique religious experiences, values, and beliefs that support and validate the intense level of religious authority you're presenting. If what you're offering is equivalent to what they're offering down the street, but joining you comes with a measure of social ostracization from the religious mainstream and asks a lot from me in terms of religious obedience, why shouldn't I just go to the chill southern baptist church down the street, where they'll have a similar service and sing similar hymns?
But obviously the Mormon strategy is working for them in important ways, and I think they're very explicitly going for normie, straight-laced kind of people and not people like me, who are spiritual seekers with high openness to experience. They want to be a church for normal, well-to-do, kinds of people. But when I read the writings, speeches, and accounts of Smith, Young, and the early Mormon movement, they really do strike me as intense spiritual seekers with high openness to experience, and a lot of the elements of Mormonism that seem most fascinating have slowly been pushed to the sidelines or rejected altogether and the idea space of American religion is worse off for it. If you have a mystery cult, don't dress it in khakis and pretend it's just another sermon. Own the mystery.
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 see you, Arius of Cyrenaica, trying to spread your homoiousian nonsense. Of course we know Jesus agreed to it, because Christ was of the same substance as God the Father, as decided by a council of bishops brought together by God's chosen representative on Earth, Constantine the Great. Being of the same substance logically follows that Christ knew of the true formulation of God's church, even after his death.
The Motte is no place for you or the Arians who hold to your corrupted image of the triune nature of God.
Almost good satire, but just a tad too obviously ridiculous here.
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