by JDK from The Mockingbird Blog
I find the Mormon religion fascinating; I’ve been known to watch BYU TV for hours and am slowly making my way through the vast literature written about its church’s history and development. While it is (fairly) easy to point out some of Mormonism’s extremely questionable claims—see, for instance, South Park—I think that there are some really interesting ways the Mormons have incorporated the concepts of Law and Gospel into their theology. If you're interested, talk to our resident expert, Jacob Smith (I'm still hoping he's going to call me up to his planet someday:).
Along those lines, I’ve finally gotten around to reading John Krakauer’s book Under the Banner of Heaven about hyper-fundamentalist Mormons (these are not your Pepsi/Jet-Blue Mormons). This book explores the religious motivation behind the calculated murder of a young woman and her child by members of a fundamentalist Mormon sect. I have to confess that while reading I was overcome by a profound sense of unease, not because I have anything particular against Mormons, and not because I think that we’re all in danger of fundamentalist violence like that described in the book; on the contrary, what was unsettling was how similar the justification these particular Mormons had for their actions is to much of contemporary Christian thought. These men were acting completely in line with Mormon epistemology, meaning that they were making decisions based upon how Mormon “theology” claims God speaks to people, through their feelings. Like when Mormons appeal to their faith as “an inner confirmation of the truth,” so these men were convinced by their feelings that God was telling them to kill.
“So, what does this have to do with Christianity?” you ask. Well, everything. If the validity of religion, or of a religious message, rests on or is substantiated by whether it answers a particular felt need, then the Feuerbachian/Marxist critique stands, and those who have developed better ways of coping with reality will have fewer and fewer reasons to resort to projecting their problems on a God of their own making.
This is not to say that I reject the idea of a “Theology from the bottom up.” Certainly not! The Gospel can never be separated from the everyday cares and concerns—the experiences—that make up our perceived world. But, as has been argued, theology that begins with Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as the grounds for both confession and speculation, can never get too far from the Cross and the shadow of healthy (necessary) self-skepticism that it casts over all of our pretensions. This is why we affirm that, although people are vaguely aware of something wrong with the world in general, only the Law preached can convert that annoyingly persistent general unease—an idea best summed up by the phrase, “I’m only human”--to Peter’s specific confession of “Go away, for I am a sinful man”—the only true confession. Through a variety of psychological neo-mystical palliative guilt management Oprahisms, the former can be effectively numbed, thus convincing the unwitting person that the erosion of hope and growing despair is one of the mysteries of life.
I’m sure we all know people, or maybe have been in the situation ourselves, completely convinced that we know both what ails us and what would alleviate that pain, only to find out that what we really needed was a Snickers bar, or maybe to sit down for a while. Or maybe you’ve found yourself in a position of having, like Monty Brewster, “all of your wildest dreams” come true, and yet you find yourself confronted with another set of problems. In other words, what I’m arguing is that total reliance on our own felt needs implies a self awareness and knowledge of who we are and what we really need that goes beyond the reach of what the Cross and the Gospel imply about our capabilities and capacities. What’s more, it makes our dependence on God inversely proportionate to our sense of emotional wellbeing. Feelings of “absolute dependence” (cf. Schliermacher), while certainly more in line with a theology of the cross, are nevertheless still feelings, and as such, are just as fleeting as feelings of absolute world domination.
Mercifully, the message of the Gospel, while certainly mediated (for better or worse) by our feelings, is nevertheless not contingent upon our own subjective appropriation of the message. These are comforting words: Jesus Christ came to save Sinners—whether you feel like one or not!
Comments (24)
I might also add that the more a person is out of harmony with the things Jesus taught, the more they should not be surprised if their “answers” or “feelings” come from a source other than the Lord. The mission of the Holy Spirit is to bear testimony of the Father and the Son, and that testimony constitutes revelation. He does that in many ways, one of which is for His Spirit to touch our spirits, which changes us forever. Sometimes that witness is so gentle we may describe it as a feeling. Sometimes it is so powerful, it is like the voice of the Lord yelling from the mountain tops.
We are also counseled to judge our answers against the revealed word of God found in the scriptures. We are counseled to read daily in the scriptures, for it is often during that reading and pondering of revealed truth that the Holy Spirit will inspire, prompt, encourage, comfort, and express love. Heavenly Father loves his children today as much as He ever has, and His promise is that He will not leave us comfortless. He will reveal His will to us as we prepare ourselves to receive it and as we show Him that we will strive to live it.
@lomal@xanga - I'm not quite sure, but, in your first sentence are you saying that the LDS is not part of the church as well, or just that the "fundamentalists" aren't?
Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as their savior is the church. This extra stuff in religion is pointless.
You ended with a good thought: Jesus Christ came to save sinners. Unfortunately, the LDS Christ is not a Saviour because he is not deity. The whole point of the Bible is that only God can save us. Those who are saved have been reconciled by God in Christ.
These truths are not mediated at all by our feelings.
I might also add that the more a person is
out of harmony with the things Jesus taught, the more they should not
be surprised if their “answers” or “feelings” come from a source other
than the Lord.
Therein lies much of the disagreements between Mormons and the rest of the church. The rest of the church believes that Joseph Smith added on to (and thus edited) the teachings of Jesus Christ. Most Christians believe that much of Mormon theology IS based on "answers" or "feelings" that come from a source other than the Lord.
We often get too obsessed with the details of our beliefs. The Christian Churches cast out those who do not believe in the Trinity or Hell Fire or Christmas Day. It doesn't matter to me though, all that matters is people need my help and I will help them as Jesus did in those days. He stood up against evil and assisted those in need. He even died for us. He "became poor so that we would become rich". He prophetised that those who truly believe in Him and sincerely follow Him will do greater things than what He has done on Earth. Wouldn't it be better if we start from the basics and work it up to the top eventually? Whatever that is done to the smallest amongst us, is done to Christ Himself.
@asterisktom@xanga - I'm always astonished that people can say something like this "Unfortunately, the LDS Christ is not a Saviour because he is not deity." It displays an incredible ignorance concerning Mormon theology or an attempt to confound current Christian orthodoxy with some LDS concepts. Mormonism's primary premise is that Jesus Christ is God--"that God himself shall come down among the children of men and shall redeem His people." (Mosiah 15:1)
The passages of LDS scripture affirming the deity of Christ are simply too prevalent to support Tom's claim.
@Alma - Well, then I am astonished too, because either (1) Mormons have changed dramatically in their doctrine or (2) you don't know your own church's history.
Do you not believe that "as man is God once was. As god is man will become"? Lorenzo Snow wrote this in 1840. If that is not official enough there are ample texts to turn to, like D&C 130.
Just so we are clear on this topic, deity means open-ended eternal existence (past and future), as well as all the other attributes we ordinarily ascribe to God, the Father. Neither Joseph Smith - nor Hinckley - believed in that true sense of deity for Christ. Do you? If you do, well, good for you. But then again,you would no longer be a Mormon.
About Mosiah 15:1: Yes, if you would just look at that small passage it might fly with some Christians. But then you read on (15:2-4) and a different picture emerges, a confusion of the Son with the Father (if we were to just consider that passage).
It reminds me of other passages in the Book of Mormon, just one will suffice here:
“I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.”(Ether 3:14)
The Jesus Christ of our Bible never said such words.
@MagisterTom@xanga - LOL. Sorry for the poor sentence modifier. I was speaking of the fundamentalists not being part of the main body of the church. Thanks for the correction.
@lomal@xanga - So, are you saying that Mormons are Christians? Or that they aren't? That is where I was going with my first question.
My initial reaction was that your comments were either borne
of ignorance or an example of failing to discern the difference between your
own conclusions and Mormon teaching. After having read your reply to me, I see it’s
an example of the latter.
When you claimed to explain “the LDS Christ” you really had no business adding to that your own perception without identifying it as such.
You still tried to do that in your response to me when you suggested that for me to be correct, “Mormons have changed dramatically in their doctrine.” I have an adequate understanding of LDS history - - enough to state that Mormonism has always taught that Jesus was and is Deity. Although Lorenzo Snow says he formulated his famous couplet in 1840, he didn’t write it until 1886; and you almost cited it correctly.
Just so we are clear on this topic, you have offered your personal definition of “deity” rather than one from Mormonism, or even better, one from a reputable dictionary. I suppose that if your pronouncements concerning Mormon theology spring from your personal lexicon, there isn’t much I could say; because you’re clearly the best authority on your own personal definitions. But when you begin by announcing what “the LDS Christ” is, I as a Mormon have the right to demonstrate that your explanation relies on your personal definition and as a result, your conclusions aren’t reliable.
I have consulted many dictionaries, and each of them conveys a meaning for "deity" that is consistent with LDS terminology. Not one of them suggests that the meaning of the word includes theological suppositions.
So, in order to remain clear, I don’t why I should accept your personal definitions above those found in standard dictionaries.
Can you suggest why I should prefer yours over such sources? My citation of Mosiah 15:1 wasn’t intended to demonstrate that Mormons share theological concepts on the nature of God; but rather to show only that Mormons believe that Jesus is Deity—which was the point of my reply
to you. I’m completely willing to discuss the doctrinal ramifications of any LDS
scripture—but only after clearly responding to the comment you made about “the LDS
Christ” not being Deity.
@asterisktom@xanga - It's really sad that someone who isn't LDS, or a "Mormon" believes that they know more than one who is. It's like asking a Ford salesman about a Chevy truck.
In any case, let me answer your accusation with a few questions. Was Christ once a man like us? Did Christ have a Heavenly Father whom He could call God just as we do? Can a resurrected glorified Christ properly be called a "perfect being", like Ignatius called him?
The main problem that I see with mainstream Christianity (AKA those who refer to themselves as "Non-denominational", Baptist, Presbyterian, etc) is that they only have bits and pieces of the whole picture. Are they true? Yes. Are they complete? No.
@MagisterTom@xanga - Mormons are Christians. We wholeheartedly believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of us all. What a lot of people I think have a hard time with is that we don't believe the Bible to be closed (or complete for that matter), and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Church on the earth that has authority from God to act in His name.
@MagisterTom@xanga - Mormons (or by our real name, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are Christians. We believe in Christ, we preach of Him, we obey His commandments, and we know that He is our only hope of salvation. It is only through His sacrifice that we can be forgiven of our sins and return to the presence of our Heavenly Father. Personally, He is my Savior because I have experienced both His healing power and His removal of my sins on numerous occasions. The purity and joy and presence of His Holy Spirit that follow such forgiveness are the greatest blessings I have ever received in this life.
@MagisterTom@xanga - Are Mormons Christians? It depends on your definition of "Christian." If you believe it means "disciples of Jesus Christ," Mormons believe they are. If you believe it means "people who have the same theological beliefs as I," then both you and Mormons would say no.
@Alma - I see now that I have much more to answer than I have time for. Let me just spend time with one main point: My definition of deity is not a personal one, but gathered from Scripture - the Bible. I read again my "personal definition" and see that I mainly referred to the fact that God would have to be eternally existent - from eternity past to eternity future. Now where did I get such an idea? A good place to start would be John 1, which shows that The Word - Christ - existed in the very beginning.
Another essential aspect of deity is being Creator. Only God creates. None of us create - or ever will.
Jeremiah 10:10, 11:
"But the Lord is the true God, He is the living God, and an
everlasting king: at His wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations
shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto
them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they
shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."
Notice that there is a distinguishing of gods here: Creator God vs. all the non-creator gods. LDS believes in potential godhood for their own believers. Your leader, Hinckley, showed that belief is very much a part of Mormonism when he wrote that "the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood".
You have every right to your belief - even in your unBiblical definition of deity.
And I have every right to explain what deity entails, according to Scripture.
I was wrong when I boiled this down to you not knowing your history or Mormonism changing (though it has). A third, larger issue is the problem of definitions.
Deity means one thing to LDS, another to Christians who know their Bibles.
Redemption, Gospel, Salvation - all of these and many more words - have gulf-wide differences of meaning between LDS and traditional Christianity.
I really don't have the time toget much further into this, having other articles planned on my own site.
Take care.
@asterisktom@xanga - That's rich Tom. It isn't your personal definition because you've constructed it based upon passages from the Bible? So, we can disregard every single dictionary definition in favor of yours because you believe you can support it from the Bible. That's no longer astonishing, it's just laughable.
Fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here fail to mention that Christ created worlds without end and ours is just one of them. Likewise, those who follow His Plan of Happiness will live here on this world, which will become a celestial world, where we too will be able to create worlds without end. This is much more exciting than playing harps for eternity.
@Alma -@Alma - Any further discussion is unnecessary, seeing that your main recourse is insult instead of dealing with the verses, or with the other quotes. Well, the main purpose of writing here was not to convince you but to show that, for all the similar terminology, there is a startling diversity between your whole system of salvation and historical Christianity.
The real tragedy of this situation is not only that LDS, an entity of hardly two centuries, has taken to themselves our words (salvation, deity, savior, redemption) and poured their own definitions into them. The real tragedy is that so many Christians are fooled and can't tell the difference, because they have never been grounded in their own churches in solid doctrine.
@asterisktom@xanga - I find it interesting that you never even looked at my response, Tom.
I find it most interesting that most of these comments have IGNORED the contribution of the article and instead begun a typical Mormons-aren't/are-Christians debate. Ugh.
The article seems to be a backhanded attempt to critique evangelicalism's dependence upon "inspired" feelings as their epistemological core. Why don't we debate that?
@J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - I'm sorry, J, I didn't respond to your comments. Like I said, I am pressed for time right now. Hopefully things free up so I can respond in a bit.
Thanks.
@Mike - Why not? As far at the LDS Church is concerned, feelings are only a part of the way that people can know the influence of the Spirit. The problem, even with members of the Church, is that many times strong feelings are confused with the influence of the Spirit. Spirit ALWAYS edifies the person (or persons as the case may be). Paul spoke of the fruits of the Spirit as well. Are those not feelings?
@J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - It's possible that the author was wrong with respect to their understanding of LDS (John Krakauer is the guide here). I would guess that LDS is just as diverse as Protestantism, so it's impossible to paint all of LDS with the same brush.
With regard to feelings... it's not so much the existence of feelings that is the problem. Rather, our feelings themselves are compromised by our sinfulness. It is possible to be joyful, peaceful, patient, etc. by way of the flesh (love- the verb, not the feeling, is a different story). The use of feelings as an epistemological criteria wrongly implies that man can properly understand the meaning of his feelings- as the author said: "what I’m arguing is that total reliance on our own felt needs implies a
self awareness and knowledge of who we are and what we really need that
goes beyond the reach of what the Cross and the Gospel imply about our
capabilities and capacities." Consequently, feelings are ambivalent and in need of an external criteria. I would argue that that criteria is God's self giving love on the cross. Said another way... the spirit testifies concerning the son (1 John 4:2).
@Mike - Very true. However, how can we know for sure. While it is true that physical evidence supports testimony, it doesn't create it. Other than what we have in the Bible, there is no record in either the Greek or Roman execution records of a Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus son of Joseph, or however else He was called while on the earth of His crucifixion or burial. If you know your history, those two groups of people were meticulous record keepers. As a "Mormon", or a Latter-day Saint, I was always taught never to take things at face value, but to go straight to the source. What, or Who in this case, is the source? Is it the Bible? No, that's full of errors and incomplete (but doesn't make it any less true). Is it the Book of Mormon. No, for the same reason. It's God, the Source of all Truth. If we go to Him with real intent and faith (meaning if we intend to act on the answer He gives us whatever it may be) then He will answer us, keeping in mind that He will never ask us to do anything to destroy another and will never lie (if He did, He would cease to be God).
How does He answer us? Too many people expect something big and extravagant like a vision. While it is spoken of a lot in scripture, it's actually a very rare occurrence. For some, it is feelings, but feelings that cannot be duplicated in any other way. For others, knowledge. Others, they remember things that they had learned so that they can apply them now. There are others, but I believe those three examples will do for now. The fact of the matter is, those who have the misconception that the Spirit will ONLY speak to us through feelings are mistaken, even though it is one of the many more common ways He does speak to us.
It's also important to remember that the Spirit's main job is to testify of the Savior Jesus Christ, that He is who He says He is: the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world who has been resurrected and glorified so that we may as well.