The Mormonizing of America (BOOK EXCERPT, PT 2) [Lds: We ALONE only true church; rest 'corrupt']

The presidential race of Mitt Romney and the success of the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon have generated new interest in Mormonism. Stephen Mansfield's book The Mormonizing of America provides a careful study of this growing religion. The Book Stop blog is posting excerpts from the first two chapters of this book.

For a Latter-day Saint, the heart of Mormonism is the restoration of priesthood authority. It is impossible to overstate this. At the core of everything Saintly is the unshakable belief that something lost for centuries was restored through Joseph Smith. It is now present in the modern world. It is present only through the LDS Church. It is what all men will ultimately need.

Mormons believe that the pure Christianity of Jesus Christ lasted only a short while after Jesus left this life. The Christian church quickly became unrighteous and corrupt, and it stayed that way until around 1830. In other words, for centuries the Christian church was a perverse shell of what was intended. Then came Joseph Smith. He not only gave the world the Book of Mormon, but he also received, along with a man named Oliver Cowdery, the restoration of the true priesthood of God. Mormons speak of this as a restoration of “priesthood authority,” which they believe was given in two defining appearances by glorified human beings: an appearance by John the Baptist and an appearance by the apostles Peter, John, and James. In these appearances or “visitations,” the only real priesthood was restored—to Mormons.

This means that when someone asks, “Where has the great age of miracles and revelation gone?” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, “It is here, right now, with us.” What Mormons believe they have in this “priesthood authority” is the ability to “bring Jesus Christ into people’s lives” through “ordinances.” It is the ability to give the gifts of the Holy Spirit, to have revelations, to bless, to dedicate, and even to heal. In other words, it is the supernatural power to do the “great works” that were done before the Christian church went astray.

Of course, the nonreligious think this is crazy. The traditional Christian thinks it is devilish. The Jew thinks it is evidence of a stolen legacy. And nearly non-Mormon thinks it is fruit of an astonishing Mormon arrogance.

Still, it is one of the most important truths we can know about what Mormonism is. Despite Joseph Smith’s many doctrinal innovations, Mormonism is not primarily about doctrine. It is about the experience of a restored supernatural power, the all-important matter of “priesthood authority.” This was what Smith built upon. It is what early Mormons sought. It is still at the heart of the faith. It is what outsiders most misunderstand.

Though it is risky to make the comparison, the best illustration of this vital truth is found in the thinking of the Prophet Muhammad, whom Joseph Smith deeply admired. For a man living in the sixth century, Muhammad was well traveled. His occupation for many years was leading caravans that crossed the known world carrying goods from place to place. This brought the future prophet into contact with nearly all the religions of his day. He likely sat by the campfires of Jews and Christians of every type and heard them talk about what they believed. He admired them both, but their factions and theological divisions disturbed him. Jews rallied around their rabbis and Christians rallied around their favorite theologies and even slew each other over seemingly slight doctrinal matters.

Muhammad found it all too complex, too contentious. When he began claiming to have revelations and when this set him to the task of designing a new religion, he decided that simplicity was the key. It should be simple to get into the faith and simple to understand the main doctrines of the faith. The more difficult matter would be actually living it out.

The simplicity of Islam has historically been part of its power. A man enters Islam largely through a one-sentence confession, the Shahadah—“There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet”—and then understands the core of Islam with “Five Pillars” that describe his duties and “Six Articles of Faith” that describe his beliefs. This is the heart of Islam. And the genius. Islam conquered a huge portion of the known world in the first hundred years of its existence partially through the power of the sword and partially through the simplicity of its system. In this matter of simplicity, Islam was to religion what McDonald’s is to food: easily remembered, easily consumed, easily replicated.

Though Mormons won’t necessarily feel complimented by the comparison, Joseph Smith was much like Muhammad in this popularizing, simplifying work. Dr. Kathryn Flake, a Mormon who is also an esteemed professor at Vanderbilt University, has said, “Joseph Smith was the Henry Ford of revelation. He wanted every home to have one, and the revelation he had in mind was the revelation he’d had, which was seeing God.” Dr. Flake is referring to the same dynamic in the intent of Joseph Smith that we’ve seen in the doctrinal system of Muhammad. Though Mormonism appears complex to the outsider, it was actually an attempt to be something like the McDonald’s of American religion.

Smith lived at a time of great spiritual upheaval, excitement, and division—as we’ll see in the next chapter. Like Muhammad, he was put off by the constant bickering in Christianity. He claimed revelations in which he was told that all churches were corrupt, that none of them had the truth, and that none were worth joining. He wanted his “true Church” to move beyond everything that led to the infighting and destruction he had seen among Christians. This created the Mormonism we know today.

The faith of the Saints evolved by prophecy rather than by doctrine. Smith was opposed to creeds. He thought they were little more than invitations to a fight. As a result, today it is difficult to find a definitive, systematic statement of what Mormons believe produced by the Mormons themselves. By their critics? Yes. By Mormons? No. He also thought that a paid clergy is an abomination—he called them “hireling priests” who would “feed themselves, not the flock”—so most Mormon leaders are unpaid volunteers. They are also untrained theologically. The study of doctrine is surprisingly informal in the Church. As a result, there is little place for professional theologians among the Saints, unlike some denominations in which the theologians almost outnumber the members. And though there are dozens of titles a male Mormon can wear—from deacon to bishop, from high priest to president—none of them come with any academic requirements.

All of this stems from the fact that Joseph Smith was focused more on what a man does than on what he believes. He was interested in spiritual experience, not theories about the spiritual. He wanted revelations, not theologies; an open heaven, not just open books. “Deeds, not creeds,” the Saints often say, and this is the intentional legacy of Joseph Smith.

The result is that while the outside world naturally identifies Mormons by the doctrinal oddities they have accrued through the years, Mormons think of themselves in terms of priesthood authority and the sacred life they share together as a result of this grand restoration.

Published by Worthy Publishing, a division of Worthy Media, Inc., Brentwood, TN. www.worthypublishing.com. Used by permission. Tell us what you thought of this excerpt on Twitter: #Mormonizing @WorthyPub

The constitution allows for freedom of religion. I don’t see Romney hiring only Mormons. Let freedom ring.

The constitution indeed allows for voters to take other-worldly worldviews of candidates into character and discernment considerations.

Which is what I do.

The constitution doesn't say, "Compartmentalize thy faith into a corner."

As for your "religious freedom" as it intersects with Romney's potential hiring decisions, I noticed in late 2007 when Romney ran the first time that he stated he wouldn't hire Muslims: Remember when Romney said he wouldn’t put a Muslim in the cabinet? He made his Mormonism relevant

So is your "freedom of religion" for all except Muslims?

(I expect an answer)

If not, where were you in critiquing Romney for that comment -- and the link above refreshing this issue last November?

Or is this just more of the religious hypocrisy I see among some FREEPERs, who find it awfully convenient to tout "freedom of religion" when it's Romney's religion under scrutiny; but then when it comes to the literal THOUSANDS of FREEPER comments about Obama's supposed Muslim connections...or about his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright...suddenly religious hypocrites like yourself never seem to go to bat for Obama with your convenient "standard" of "freedom of religion."

If I'm wrong on this, please point me to the posts where you've defended Obama's "freedom of religion." (Otherwise, I'll interpret your silence as dual-faced religious hypocrisy in action)

The Catholic Church claims it is the only true church. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim they are the only true religion...Many churches make this claim.

Well, it's certainly true of cults to make this claim (JWs; Lds). My understanding of Roman Catholic teachings that it does recognize the Eucharistic and Apostolic Succession of Eastern Orthodox churches. Therefore, your conclusion that it thinks it's the "only game in town" doesn't appear to be an accurate conclusion.

Colo: "My understanding of Roman Catholic teachings that it does recognize the Eucharistic and Apostolic Succession of Eastern Orthodox churches. Therefore, your conclusion that it thinks it's the "only game in town" doesn't appear to be an accurate conclusion."

You are correct, Colofornian. Also, he Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Baptism in other Christian denominations. And since we understand Baptism as the Sacrament of initiation into the Church, we acknowledge other baptized Christians as members of the Church, in almost any denomination.

Except the Mormons.

Why not the Mormons? Because, although they use the same words and form of Baptism, they are actually referring to a different 'god.' They do not believe there is just One God who is the 'maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.' Mormons believe in many gods, maybe millions of them throughout the Universe.

Therefore the Catholic Church accepts other Christrians as 'Christians," we can't theologically say the same about Mormons, since they actually don't believe in the same God. And this is not an insult. It's just the fact, and they (well-informed Mormons) would be the first to agree.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24660

Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation

7/10/2007
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

VATICAN CITY (Catholic Online) – The Catholic Church is the one, holy, apostolic church of Christ, while other Christian Orthodox and Protestant denominations that “suffer from defects” share elements of “sanctification and of truth,” said the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation.

Released July 10 under the title “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” the 1,200-word document was signed by U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and congregation secretary Archbishop Angelo Amato, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI before publication.

In the document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on the intent of ecumenical efforts undertaken after the Second Vatican Council more than 40 years ago, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous … which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt.”

The document, published in Latin, English, French, Italian German, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish, was issued three days after the papal release of a document that revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by relaxing restrictions on the celebration of the Latin-language Tridentine Mass.

Noting that churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church “suffer from defects,” the doctrinal congregation acknowledged that “elements of sanctification and truth” may be present in them.

“It follows that these separated churches and communities … are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation,” the congregation said. “In fact, the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

The doctrinal congregation made clear that Vatican II did not modify but rather clarified and made explicit what may have been uncertain or unclear in the field of ecumenical relations. “The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change” Catholic doctrine on the church, it said, “rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.”

It said that the Second Vatican Council was clear in stating that Christ’s church “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”

That phrase affirms that the “historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ” are only present in the Catholic Church, the congregation said.

It noted that the Orthodox faith communities are called “churches,” though separate from the Catholic Church, as they have retained apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Because of those close bonds, the congregation said, they merit the title of churches and are seen as “sister churches” of specific Catholic churches.

Yet, Christian communities “born out of the Reformation” do not share that union as they “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders,” the Vatican congregation said.

“These ecclesial communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called churches in the proper sense,” it said.

In a “commentary” issued with the document, the congregation said that “ecumenical dialogue remains one of the priorities of the Catholic Church.”

Yet, it stressed that such dialogue must be founded on “not just mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith.”

The congregation noted that, while “Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical,” the Second Vatican Council has sought to “try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations” that, despite existent Christian divisions, “the church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church” and that “elements of sanctification and truth do exist … in ecclesial communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church.”

“The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners.”

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI’s Prayer Intentions for June 2012
General Intention:Christ, Present in the Eucharist.
That believers may recognize in the Eucharist the living presence of the Risen One who accompanies them in daily life.
Missionary Intention:European Christians.
That Christians in Europe may rediscover their true identity and participate with greater enthusiasm in the proclamation of the Gospel.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.