Talk:Mormonism

From Theopedia

Archives
1

Contents 1 What do you mean by... 2 Comment on Vandalism 3 Example of the pharisees 4 More Vandalism 5 Jordan's addition to the culture section 6 Where could I place this? 7 Another question about atheological 8 Scrap It All and Leave Off Opinion 9 Meritocracy and Undeserved grace

[edit] What do you mean by...

Aaron, you stated that,

Mormons are generally atheological and have little concern for their own doctrine or theology (or history).

I find LDS to be obsessed with their history. The minute you bring up the whole move from NY to UT they come to tears, and are defensive of Smith and Young. I agree with the rest, but I think it's wrong to say they have little concern for their history.

Lastly, I'll try and clarify this because it may come off wrong. I'm not sure I actually buy that LDS are atheological. All through high school they are attending seminary classes where they read through and study the OT, NT, BoM, D&C, and PoGP. They tend to be more knowledgeable than most Evangelicals concerning the Bible, especially those who went on a mission and got trained at the MTC. My problem is that if you lump Mormonism into the atheological camp, you end up doing the same with Evangelicals (and maybe you'd agree that they tend to be). If this is a criticism of Mormonism, it remains one of Evangelicalism. I have reservations about trying to stereotype Mormonism by it's members, rather than representing it by those who lead it. JordanBarrett 23:32, 18 November 2005 (EST)

I grant that they care about certain parts of their history. I guess my clause concerning history is oversimplistic. They just don't care about large portions of their history, i.e. the reputation of Joseph Smith in NY, etc.

Being atheological does not mean you are not knowledgeable. Simple evangelical folks who love Christ are more "theological" than resurrection-denying genious liberal professors. The Christian is concerned about his religion when the deity of Christ is questioned, or the basic nature of God is challenged. For the Mormon, matters of cultural norms take FAR higher precedence than questions concerning the very nature and deity of God.

Many evangelicals, especially from the market-driven church movement, are extremely atheological, and I think that is deathly... oh so dangerous. Worthy of criticism. On the border of being hell-bound. When we do not simply care about the nature of God and salvation, we are most likely not regenerate.

I have reservations about trying to stereotype Mormonism by it's members, rather than representing it by those who lead it. Mormonism deserves more attention than merely doing one or the other. It is more complex than to simply give it the representation that leaders give it. I think this goes for many religious movements. It would be foolish not to give attention both to what is generated in the folk component of a religion and the public, "official" compontent.

Anyways, I think there is plenty of evidence that Mormons are generally atheological. To start off, check your e-mail :-) We can talk about this more. I'm not saying that Mormons are atheological because I have an axe to grind. I'm saying it because it was probably one of the most helpful, most enlightening things about Mormons I have ever learned. It helped solve a mass quandary that arose when I juxtaposed all the anomalies and the allegiance. It just didn't make sense. Then *click* this isn't about genuine excitement and unity over theology. This is about something else. Grace and peace. -Aaronshaf 00:41, 19 November 2005 (EST)

That makes a lot of sense. Realizing this from what you wrote, I guess my difficulty comes to this question: How can we categorize what the Mormon laymen believe? I find it to be a daunting (sp?), if not impossible task. I hesitate to say "Mormons believe this" or "If you meet a Mormon they will say..." because you and I have had contradictory experiences with LDS at some points. Also, I would be ticked if LDS looked at the "market-driven church movement" and tried to camp me in there with them. I fear that is what we do to them sometimes. That's why I lean towards categorizing "official" LDS theology (and I'm not talking about Millet here) and attempting a summary of beliefs that can somewhat be backed up academically, rather than saying on these articles (in my own terms) "These are my experiences, thus, Mormons believe..." I see myself wanting to go that route, but I want to avoid it. JordanBarrett 00:57, 19 November 2005 (EST)

In either route I recognize the importance of citing source material. One thing that makes me lean away from granting undue attention to Mormon academia's attempt to give a rational, systematic presentation/defense of its faith is that there is an abnormally huge disconnect between lay Mormons and Mormon academia. Whereas the teachings of our seminaries trickle down to the laymen through trained pastors and other leaders/teachers--those who read the material that seminaries put out--, it is far different for Mormons. There is a virtual chasm between academic Mormonism and folk Mormonism.

If it is of any consolation, the very effort of a wiki (the medium) presenting a religious movement like this lends itself toward a systematic presentation, thus I am certain I will be the one belly-aching in the end that the presentation gives so much attention to official and academic systematics. :-) -Aaronshaf 22:59, 20 November 2005 (EST)

Again, I'm not talking about Millet stuff or anything from Mormon academia. I'm talking about the Apostles and Prophet(s) who have made claims in General Conferences or other more official or important meetings/events. I remember hearing from not only Millet but many of my LDS friends (laymen), "If you want to know what we believe, listen to G. Conference or read what our church officially puts out." I think we should take that to heart here - not let it rule our articles - but again, I don't think we can stereotype accurately what most Mormon laymen believe. JordanBarrett 23:39, 20 November 2005 (EST)

All in all, I think we're on the same page. I think I just like to hear myself talk. -Aaronshaf 00:36, 21 November 2005 (EST)

[edit] Comment on Vandalism

A visitor left the following:

"Of course, for a people who are atheological, it is amazing that 1) their teenaged youth take a daily course of scriptural study either during high school or early morning before school; 2) they are encouraged to have daily scripture study as a family, and 3) both adults and children attend several study classes each Sunday."

Again, one can be atheological and be extremely well acquainted with one's canon. What makes one atheological is that the "why" questions to their fundamental life choices are not answered by a consciously theology-driven worldview. Case in point: Many of the Pharisees were atheological. They knew the scriptures, but why did they mostly reject Jesus? They wanted to preserve their status quo and culture. -Aaronshaf 00:01, 20 November 2005 (EST)

Or, they interpreted their scriptures wrongly - another major problem in Mormonism. On a side note, it'd be cool to have a page (down the road that is) on "Presuppositions in Mormon Hermeneutics" or something like that. JordanBarrett 00:52, 20 November 2005 (EST)

[edit] Example of the pharisees

Here's a thought on how Jesus criticized the Pharisees. Let me know what you (or anyone else) thinks. I tend to think that Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they were Jews who were supposed to be leading Israel and being a light to the nations. In a sense, he criticized those in his own camp. On the other hand, Mormons are not in our camp - they're technically enemies of God. It also appears that Paul says that we are to judge those inside the Church (1 Cor 5:12-13), and leave those outside to God's judgment. So, I wonder if Jesus' criticism of those in his camp should be applied to Christianity, in that we should be more confrontational with those in the Church and stop blatantly condemning those outside the Church to their face. Thoughts? JordanBarrett 00:49, 20 November 2005 (EST)

"Judge" in 1 Corinthians 5 primarily concerns the disfellowship and public disassociation of someone who claims association. In light of 5:11, you could argue that Mormons still fall under this because they "[bear] the name of brother." But I don't equate "judge" here with Christ's use of "judge" in Matthew 7. If by "judge" you primarily mean "criticize", I think we should't do that unless we are sure we can't ourselves be criticized for the same thing, i.e. we should avoid being cocky and arrogant and hypocritical. Otherwise its fine if done for love and the honoring of the Son. If by judge you mean "prejudge", I don't think that should be done to anyone (although there is such a thing as an accurate negative generalization) (cf. Paul speaking of the Cretans)

There are plenty examples of Biblical criticism of those outside the covenant. John the Baptist with herod, etc. Paul with the Judaizers (outside the new covenant!). Also, from the discernment on my end, I think Mormons act more like Pharisees than humble, desperate sinners who need a Great Physician. That isn't to say we shouldn't give a lot of people the benefit of doubt, and discern whether they are different from the rest of their organization, of course. Anyways, my 2c. Time for shower and church... Grace and peace. -Aaronshaf 10:36, 20 November 2005 (EST)

"If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!" (1 Corinthians 16:22)

First, I never equated "judge" in 1 Cor 5 with Jesus in Matt 7, so I'm not sure where you got that. Anyways, are you saying Mormons bear the name of brother by trying to appear Christian? Hmmm... I will say you are right about that. :) And on that note, I think that should be a fundamental focus within our articles - we are critiquing and exposing Mormon theology because they claim to be Christians but more importantly because it is dishonoring to God. Ok... I'll eat my words.  :) Thanks for the thought. JordanBarrett 14:12, 20 November 2005 (EST)

[edit] More Vandalism

This vandalism is causing me to think that we should disable the red patrol flag and disable anonymous edits. -Aaronshaf 22:36, 20 November 2005 (EST)

Since "Mormonism" is a subset of Christianity, informed Latter-day Saints do understand that their critics are using language incorrectly or mischievously when they make incoherent claims equivalent to "Mormonism is not Christian." Mormons actually believe themselves to be Christian precisely because of their theology and for no other reason.

Whether Mormon doctrine represents a correct or biblically sound understanding of the Gospel of Jesus is a legitimate subject of inquiry and debate; but the question of whether Mormonism is "Christian," as that word is normally used, simply does not exist except in the most highly polemicized discourse.

Statements like that leave me in awe. That's like saying, "Whether Mormonism understands the gospel can be up for debate, but we're still Christian, period." Atheological to the core. -Aaronshaf 22:59, 20 November 2005 (EST)

I still vote to remove the flags and to make people get user names. Granted, they can still vandalize with user names, but it also takes about 10 sec to get one too, so it's not that big of a deterent to getting editors. - .02 JordanBarrett 23:11, 20 November 2005 (EST)

[edit] Jordan's addition to the culture section

It's a good section, but seems all awkward under the title "culture"? Grace and peace. -Aaronshaf 23:26, 20 November 2005 (EST)

[edit] Where could I place this?

This is a great resource, but I can't think of where it would go.  ??? http://www.equip.org/free/JAM515.htm JordanBarrett 16:40, 21 November 2005 (EST)

[edit] Another question about atheological

To be upfront about things, I'm LDS, an adult convert from evangelical Christianity. I have no intent of writing anything for this wiki except on the talk pages; even if I see an error, it wouldn't be my place to make the change. At the moment, I am here to ask a question; I'm not trying to argue a point.

All that said, I'm a bit puzzled by the statement that Mormons are atheological. Maybe I'm a bit unusual, I don't know, as I joined the CoJCoLDS not for cultural or family reasons, but primarily for theological ones. Certainly there are many members that do participate for cultural (for lack of a better word) reasons, but after spending quite a number of years in evangelicaldom, I'm not sure that's more true of Mormons than it is of Pentecostals or Methodists or Nazarenes or megachurchers or whatever. I've heard plenty of theological discussions in Sunday school classes, and certainly the LDS blogs are dominated by them.

I understand the distinction that has been made, that even those who are atheological may be well-educated in the theology of their religion. And I agree that many (I wouldn't hazard a percentage) are in the LDS church largely because of family ties or social connections. But I've seen the same in evangelical churches I have attended (pre-conversion) or visited (since then). I've seen many people attend evangelical churches for the music, for example, as well as for the excellent social outlet many provide.

So my question is this: Could you name me a denomination or Christian movement that isn't atheological? An answer to that question might give me a better understanding of what you mean by the term. Thanks. — unsigned comment by Commentwriter (talk • contribs)

[edit] Scrap It All and Leave Off Opinion

I come from an interesting position where I know both the Mormon and Christian point of view well. I think the whole pages is a mistake which could only start wildfires. Because it's oriented only on the culture of Mormonism, it has to make broad sweeping statements (i.e."LDS pride themselves on their past, especially on their founder Joseph Smith. LDS history is riddled with many problems, and although most Mormons know much about their history, they have either avoided or tend to be ignorant of the many problems that exist," or "Mormons are generally atheological. Because of this, Mormons often have difficulty understanding the significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity," etc.), which can't be true because of how general they are in referencing a huge demographic.

I agree that the Mormon culture has a large impact on their lives, but it is a religion first and foremost. Religion being a belief system regarding the nature of God and man's relationship to God.

I think a more useful entry for Mormonism would include a list of the official doctrines (the LDS church has several good recourses), how they differ from most Christianity, and some observable facts about their culture (teenage seminary, frequency and nature of church gatherings, meetings, callings, study topics for class, etc). If you give people just these facts they could decide for themselves whether to apply debatable labels such as "atheological" or "ignorant."

Opinions in what claims to be an Encyclopedia is probably what upsets people the most. — unsigned comment by 67.161.246.196 (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't know how else to describe the experience of discussing theology with Mormons, than that they have no patience for theological confidence, and an enormous appetite for theological anarchy. This does not, as you seem to think it does, describe some sort of personality flaw that can be generalized over the whole people. It describes the religion of Mormonism itself - that it is not theological. This is why Mormon theological doctrine can radically change with hardly a ripple. This is demonstrated in the fact that they cannot tell you with any confidence, the difference between doctrine and speculation with regard to "God" in practically ány significant respect.

Was there a god before "God" was a god? Is he a man, who progressed from pre-existance, to birth, to exaltation just as you hope to do? Maybe you've heard of that opinion - indeed, isn't it often thought to be Mormon theology in a nutshell? But it is alternately affirmed and denied with such rapidity and force, that you cannot know whether the LDS has such a doctrine or not. Who knows? Is the "Father" capable of being "omnipresent through the Holy Ghost" only, or does he also have the power in himself to be omnipresent? Are you sure? Can the "Holy Ghost" dwell within you, being a "personage of spirit" - or does his solid body of refined matter mean that he is confined to one place? How many Mormons know the sameness or difference between the "Light of Christ", the "spirit of Christ", the "spirit of the Father", the "Holy Spirit", the "Holy Ghost", and the "Spirit of God"? Who really cares? Is Jesus YHWH of the Old Testament, and is that the same as the angel of YHWH? Was the Godhead at one time a single Being, but later two Beings, and then three Beings? Who cares? I have never found a Mormon who knows such things, and I never expect to find a Mormon who cares; and if they think they know, they cannot speak for anyone but themselves. The same thing extends even to the understanding of salvation: Did Jesus remove the debt of sin owed to the "Father", or did he transfer the debt to himself? Do they care about the difference that it would make?

It comes through also in their indifference to and distortions of orthodox theology. Do they know or care about the difference between Mormon "exaltation" and Orthodox "theosis"? The complete indifference to theology comes through everywhere - not because the people somehow accidentally happen to be indifferent, but because their religion itself fosters indifference and encourages theological speculation instead, inculcates it, with constant social pressure to remain pliable and to wait in case such things are decided, or undecided, or then decided differently by the appropriate authority.

Theology is "thinking about God" - thinking about God is not how doctrines are discovered, decided, or understood in The Mormon Way, which is the way of "follow the prophet". Personal guidance, not the doctrine of God, is the heart of Mormon religion. It is an emphatically atheological way.   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 01:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meritocracy and Undeserved grace

From bottom to top, Mormonism is in its entire practice a ritualized meritocracy: a system of rewards "after all we can do". Its conception of grace is magical, not supernatural - because there is nothing above nature - but rather, occult. Its conception of sanctification is cosmic humanism. Theirs is a religion of hero worship, and like the religion of the Pharaohs, like the cult of Caesar, like the Arian kings, the highest conception of a hero is apotheosis. Its "theism" is atheistic. Instead of believing in the mystery of God in Christ, which in principle puts all else than God within the grasp of reason because God has given His Word to knowledge, they have embraced an immanentist conception of "God" subject to reason, which as with the philosophers puts all things along with "God" in the realm of speculation.

At the same time, Mormonism is a religion of "grace", the font of which is the "atonement" purchased by Christ for sinners, and carried forward by the mercy of God. It is a religion of partly the Bible, of the partly sure word of prophecy, partly of the "Holy Ghost", of partly prayer and of partly forgiveness. No contradiction exists for them, in anything they believe, if they believe it all - and consequently, they have no problem in assuming concordance between Mormonism and everything you already believe, because what you believe is partly what they believe. It is necessary, in Mormonism, not to make sense of these things but simply to believe in their belief.

It seems to me then, that the task is to destroy not their belief but their unbelief, because they can't tell the difference. That's what's meant by "atheological".   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 06:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)