Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jwindley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jay Windley) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mormonism and Christianity Message-ID: Date: 2 Sep 90 03:20:41 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 259 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: |Is Mormonism a branch of Christianity? Strictly, the LDS would not claim to be a "branch" of Christianity. Rather, we are a restoration of the church that Christ founded and which the Apostles preached. |One way to approach this question is to set out basic Christian |doctrine, lay alongside it Mormon doctrine, and compare the two. |That's what I propose to do here, but the task is not an easy one. [...] |The one remaining piece of solid ground, around which I think |most Christian sects would gather, is the Apostles' Creed, most |of which most of us believe most of the time. |Secondly, what is Mormon doctrine? That's tougher. Mormonism, |you see, is a mystery religion, and like all such it has an |exoteric doctrine and one or more levels of esoteric doctrine; |these do not always agree - indeed are designed not always to |agree. In addition, the doctrine underwent a major change |after 1844, when the teachings of Joseph Smith were superseded |by those of Brigham Young. The doctrines of the former make |up the core of the exoteric, or public teaching, and are preserved |almost intact by the Reorganized Church. The secret doctrines |are largely the work of the latter. While I would normally take issue with the above, I would only say that Robert's comparison is already doomed. The Apostles' Creed was set down centuries ago, with only the written scriptures and the medieval Christian tradition as its basis (not to mention endless theological and philosophical entanglements). LDS doctrine derives from the classical Judeo-Christian scripture, modern scripture not accepted by other Christians, and to a lesser extent the teachings of present-day prophets. |With some trepidation, I propose to take as the essential doctrine |the teaching that underpins the Temple ceremonies, since that is |considered most important by the Mormons themselves. |Finally, this comparison deliberately takes the Apostles' Creed as |the standard, and compares Mormon doctrine to it. The reader is |advised that the result is not a complete, accurate or fair |presentation of Mormonism, any more that a similar exercise using |Hindu doctrine would be a fair portrayal of Hinduism. It seeks only |to answer the question, can Mormonism reasonably be considered a |branch of Christianity, and in my opinion answers it in the negative. If Robert's presentation of "Mormonism" is not "complete, accurate, [and] fair", why should anyone consider his Gedankteksperiment of any value? If I (as a Mormon) made a comparison using incomplete, inaccurate, and biased information about some other sect, the whole of net.land would cry 'foul!' |-------- |1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, |No. The being who was the father of Jesus, to whom Mormons |pay reverence, is finite, bounded in space and time, and one |of many such beings. There are speculations about higher gods, |singular or plural, just as there were in pagan Antiquity, |but by any reasonable criterion this is polytheism. We believe God is finite only in His physical form. His tangibility is bounded in space, but not in time; He is eternal. His wisdom, intelligence, power, and all such intangible qualities are unbounded and infinite and extend far beyond our own understanding. Much scripture suggests that God's physical form is finite, and historical evidence suggests that this is similar to the beliefs of the early Christians. Speculation does not make doctrine. |Moreover, this god evolved from a manlike being, and men can |evolve into godlike beings of equal stature with the Father. Are we not commanded to "be perfect" even as God is? Since the doctrine of eternal progression comes from recent revelation, one would expect not to find it in the Creed. Polytheism is the worship of more than one god. There is another -theism whose name escapes me which more accurately describes the LDS view of God; namely, that we worship one God, but do not deny the existence of others. [henotheism --clh] |2. Maker of heaven and earth: |No. the universe is pre-existent, and gods evolve within it. |Each god creates his own earth, but even here the gods who |created this earth (named Jehovah and Michael) did not do so |ex nihilo, but rather formed it from chaotic matter, just as |did Marduk in the Babylonian creation epic. Creatio ex nihilo is not a universal Christian doctrine. The word 'barah' does not mean 'to create from nothing' or 'to bring into existence.' It means 'to form,' 'to organize,' or 'to build.' All these imply the existence of prime matter. The LDS position is most tenable. |3. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, |No. Jesus is not the only son; in particular Lucifer is his |brother. Neither is he Lord; we (if we are good Mormons) shall |evolve into beings independent of him and higher than he. If Jesus is the only son of God, why is God referred to as our Father? We believe that Jesus is the only *begotten* Son of God, meaning the only person who did not have a mortal father. The last sentence is blatantly *not* LDS doctrine. We are never independent of God, and always subordinate to Him in glory. |4. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, |No. This one they are very reticent about, but the secret doctrine |is that Jesus' incarnation followed the same pattern as that of |Herakles or Siegmund: God the Father took on physical form, came |down to earth, and impregnated Mary by an act of physical copulation. Robert's misrepresentation of LDS doctrine has crossed the line from inaccurate to offensive. This statement has not one whit of LDS doctrine in it. There is no "secret" doctrine which states or implies that Jesus was conceived in an act of sexual intercourse. Robert's ignorance of LDS doctrine seriously undermines our faith in him as a competent reviewer of our faith. |5. Born of the Virgin Mary, |No. See above. We believe Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. We do believe that she later had children by Joseph in the customary fashion, thus did not remain a virgin to her death. |8. He descended into hell; |Not quite - but a lot of Christians have trouble with this one, so |I'll pass. It hinges on how one defines hell. Since our definition does not agree with some Christian tenets, our interpretation I Peter 3:18-20 may not agree. |9. The third day he rose again from the dead, |No. There was no physical resurrection; Jesus appeared to his |disciples, and later to the inhabitants of the New World, in a |spiritual body. The same body, in fact, that he departed to |become incarnate. Once again Robert's knowledge of LDS doctrine is inadequate. We believe that Christ resurrected on the third day, meaning he took up His body, which was made incorruptible. We believe His appearances to His disciples, to Mary, to the travelers to Emaus, and to the Nephites in the New World were made as a physically resurrected being. |10. He ascended into heaven, |No. There is no one heaven; there are several spiritual planes |of existence, divided into regious under the sway of different |gods. Paul was caught up to the "third heaven." Does not this imply the existence of two others? Robert's description is rather wrong, but this is not the issue. We believe that Jesus ascended to the third heaven, where God dwells. |11. And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; |Yes, if we omit the word 'Almighty', Why? LDS believe in the omnipotence of God. |12. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. |No. There is no last judgement: we continue to evolve even after |death, on various spiritual planes. Moreover, the dead can make |progress through the actions of their incarnate descendents. Patently false. The final judgement, performed by Christ, will assign us to a "spiritual plane" (or 'degree of glory', as LDS terminology has it). All vicarous work for the dead must be done before this judgement. We will have opportunity to progress only within our degree of glory; passing to a higher degree is not possible. |13. I believe in the Holy Ghost; |No. For public consumption, the Holy Ghost is described as |a spirit personage; the inner doctrine is that it is a metaphor |for a certain kind of spiritual power. So far Robert's "inner doctrines" have nothing to do with LDS teachings. At all levels, the Holy Ghost is a spirit personage who testifies of the truth. |15. The Communion of Saints; |No. Of all aspects of Mormon doctrine, this is the strangest, and |to this writer the most distasteful. Much Mormon ritual is concerned |with the organization of beings, living and dead, into power |relationships. Thus, women are sealed to men, dead ancestors to |living descendents, and children to parents. In all cases, this |renders the one sealed eternally subservient to the sealer. There |is neither community nor equality: each strives to evolve into |the god of his own world, at the apex of an hierarchy of beings |bound to obedience. "Power relationship" is misleading. Sealing work for the dead unites families forever, but not in a power hierarchy. It is most analogous to an earthly family. I obeyed my father because I knew he was older and wiser than I, not because I was "bound to obedience." Perhaps LDS doctrines seem distasteful because Robert doesn't under- stand them. |16. The Forgiveness of sins; |No. The Mormon doctrine is that sins must be atoned for by the |blood of the sinner. Not exactly. The hairsplit neglects to mention that this is the case only for the unrepentent and deliberate sinner. Those who repent are eligible for the mercy of God unto the forgiveness of sins. |17. The Resurrection of the body, |No. There is no physical resurrection: the dead resume the |spiritual bodies they had before birth. Blatantly, obviously false. One of the most well-known doctrines of the LDS church is that we will all be physically resurrected. |-------- If you inserted "begotten" between "only" and "Son", and omitted the Communion of the Saints clause, nearly all LDS would find the Apostle's Creed quite palatable. Since this was to be Robert's basis of determining one's "Christianity," the LDS church passes with at least as many flying colors as most Protestant faiths. The problem seems to be that Robert has given us a completely inaccurate view of LDS doctrine (as promised) and then lamented when these imaginings do not agree with a predominantly Catholic doctrine. He seems also to want to equate LDS precepts with 'pagan' teachings. There are many similarities between 'pagan' dogmas and Christian principles, which does not prove that one derives from the other. He is just trying to create a problem where none exists. For the hundredth time, the LDS church is a Christian church. We believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God, that through His atonement we may be saved, and that He died and rose again from the grave. We teach what we believe are His doctrines. We allow all men to worship as they see fit, though we would share our religion with them. -- Jay Windley - CIS Dept. - Kansas State University NET: jwindley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu VOICE: (913) 532-5968 FAX: (913) 532-6722 USnail: 323 Seaton Hall, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506 Obligatory quote: "" -- /dev/null [Actually, the Apostles' Creed is a bit older than you indicate. I don't have the information here to establish a date, but I think it's 3rd Cent. or before. Thus it generally involves the technical terms used in later discussions. It's very unlikely that it actually goes back to the apostles. There are a number of baptismal creeds from the 2nd and 3rd cents., with slight variations in different areas. The Apostle's Creed seems to be related to them. It certainly isn't based on medieval sources, though, since it's quite a bit earlier. I would think that you could interpret "communion of saints" in an acceptable manner, if that's your only problem. --clh]