Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!usc!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mormonism and Christianity Message-ID: Date: 2 Sep 90 03:50:17 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 269 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >Is Mormonism a branch of Christianity? I am not greatly concerned if Robert or any other man thinks I a Christian or not. What counts is my relationship with God and his judgement on me. However this his posting contains rather severe distortions of LDS (Mormon) doctrine so I feel compelled to respond. >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. Not as hard as you claim although I agree that you have failed. >First, what is basic Christian doctrine? We have argued in this >group about many Christian topics, and do not agree on much of >it: the Assumption, whether the Mass is a sacrifice, whether >Scripture is infallible, and lots more. That tells me I cannot >start with the catechism of one group. Moreover, I can't start >with scripture either, since that leaves me vulnerable to the >claim that our scriptures have been hopelessly corrupted by >successive translations (I may think that claim bogus, but >others don't). Actually few LDS would claim that our scriptures have been "hopelessly corrupted." While we think there are a few errors, they are generally quite reliable. The problem is that different people interpret them differently. We may agree to believe the Bible but we will probably not agree on what some passages really mean. >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. I don't know what fraction of Christians accept the Apostle's Creed but I for one would not put it on the same plane with scripture. I think it is the product of men (good men, but men nevertheless) trying to define their beliefs. I do not accept it as binding. >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. The above paragraph is total garbage. There is no secret doctrine in the LDS Church and I can't think of any major teachings not originally taught by Joseph Smith (although of course clarifications have come from later prophets). Sorry for the strong wording but let's call a spade a spade. If you want to discuss this, trot out your evidence. >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. Unfortunately you demonstrate a profound ignorance of these teachings. All of them point to Jesus Christ and what he did for us. >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, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, we definitely agree here! >-------- >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. Quite distorted. I have answered this charge before in this forum, within the last 2 months so probably should not spend the bandwidth on it now. If you want my answer, email me and I will send it to you. >Moreover, this god evolved from a manlike being, and men can >evolve into godlike beings of equal stature with the Father. We believe we will never be equal to the Father. >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. Rather distorted. Even then the Hebrew word translated "create" in Genesis has about the same meaning as our word "make." Creating from existing material fits quite nicely. The ex nihilo creation is not at all necessary to the Biblical text. >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. No! We will never be higher than Jesus! While we believe we were all spirit children of God, Jesus is the only person ever born on this earth as direct offspring of Heavenly Father. >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. Once again you (or more likely Walter Martin whom you are probably quoting) take a little misunderstanding and blow it all out of proportion. Are you claiming that Jesus was not the son of God the Father but of the Holy Ghost? I think that Matthew's statement that Mary was with child of the Holy Ghost means that only through the power of the Holy Ghost could she be impregnated by the Father. The Father is Jesus' father in the flesh. As for physical copulation, it is not part of LDS doctrine (although some speculation to that effect was printed and of course siezed upon by Martin as absolute doctrine since it fit his purpose). >5. Born of the Virgin Mary, >No. See above. Wrong again. See above. (stuff deleted where Robert sees no problems with the LDS position) >8. Descended into Hell. >Not quite - but a lot of Christians have trouble with this one, so >I'll pass. Interesting. You have put this creed up as the test of Christianity but now you say a lot of Christians have trouble with this so it doesn't count! However, LDS belief is that Jesus did descend into what we might call "Hell" and preach to the people there. I've had conversations with people who seem to be quite knowledgable about this belief in the Roman Catholic Church and our beliefs are quite similar. >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. Absolutely 100% wrong! Where did you get this trash? LDS belief is that he was physically resurrected and that when he appeared to the New World inhabitants he even allowed them to feel the wounds in his hands and side. >10. He ascended into heaven, >No. There is no one heaven; there are several spiritual planes >of existence, divided into regions under the sway of different >gods. Totally wrong! >11. And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; >Yes, if we omit the word 'Almighty', No, we don't need to omit the word 'Almighty.' >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. More distortion. We definitely believe he will come to judge the quick and the dead. >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. This is a bald-faced lie. >14. The holy Catholick Church; >No, obviously. Of course this also excludes Protestants (except maybe Anglicans) from Christianity. Maybe the Apostle's Creed isn't such a good test of who is a Christian as you claim. >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. More distortion. The relationships are family relationships and LDS doctrine clearly teaches that "power" comes through love, patience, long-suffering and kindness. See Doctrine and Covenants section 121. >16. The Forgiveness of sins; >No. The Mormon doctrine is that sins must be atoned for by the >blood of the sinner. Wrong again. Cindy Smith posted the same charge and I answered it, again within the last 2 months. >17. The Resurrection of the body, >No. There is no physical resurrection: the dead resume the >spiritual bodies they had before birth. Again totally wrong. We quite clearly teach that the resurrection is a reuniting of the spirit (which we had before birth) and a purified, immortal body. >18. And the life everlasting. >Yes. Robert, I think you have demonstrated the dangers of getting your ideas of somebody's beliefs only from their enemies. Your posting shows almost no understanding of LDS doctrine. In fact I recognize most of it as standard stuff put out my "Mormon-bashers," most notably of late by Walter Martin and someone named Decker whose first name I don't remember. If you really want to know what we believe you ought to also read something like _A Marvelous Work and a Wonder_ by LeGrande Richards. You should also of course read the Book of Mormon, commenting on our beliefs without reading it is like commenting on Jewish beliefs without reading the Pentatuch. [In response to your comment about the "holy, catholic Church": The term catholic means universal. The creed is used by Protestants as well as Roman Catholics. For Protestants, the meaning of this clause in the creed is that the real Church is one, united by its common unity with Christ, whatever disunity may exist among church organizations. It is certainly confusing for the term catholic to be used both in its original meaning of universal and to refer to a specific church tradition, but if you know the history it's easy to see where both usages came from. It isn't the only word to have multiple meanings. --clh]