Stranger in a Mormon Land

The American Spectator ^ | July-August 2013 | Jeremy Lott

[Alex Murphy]

...There are many things that you will recognize, including concepts and even scriptures, but they will be recast in a way that is weird, in fact, utterly foreign to you.

Sure, members of this relatively new faith will use the same Hebrew Bible, but they will call it something different, the “Old Testament,” which hints at a divide. They also use other authoritative books, and their method of interpretation has little to nothing to do with your own tradition. They have transformed the Passover meal into something barely recognizable to you. They profess faith in a messiah, but their idea of him is different from your own hopeful notion of the savior of the Jewish people and the world. They affirm the truth of your religion to a point, but insist on a newer, fuller revelation from God that has superseded yours, and invite you to join them in this final dispensation.

My visit to the Mormon ward was a bit like that, and included one young missionary’s well-drilled attempts to proselytize me in the break between the “church” and “Sunday school” portions of the morning. Latter-day Saints don’t go in for compulsion in religion, just really strong and persistent suggestion, so we kept it civil. (Missionary: “If you pray about this, God will show you.” Journalist: “Yeah, I’ll get right on that.”)

One thing outsiders usually don’t understand about Mormonism is that, outside the official power structure in Salt Lake City, it’s mostly a religion of earnest amateurs. The white-shirt, black tie-wearing, backpack-toting missionaries (known as “elders”), pastors (“bishops”), and bishops (“stake presidents”—yes, it’s confusing) don’t draw salaries and serve for fixed terms. There is thus a real sense, shared by both audience and speaker, that the guy up there talking is one of us...

[Vigilanteman]

The Nicene Creed does not equal Christianity, only a majority view. Mormon's rejection of the Nicene Creed is hardly a unique position.

The original Anabaptist movement of Jan Hus, who predated Martin Luther by nearly a century, neither subscribed to nor specifically rejected the Nicene Creed.

They did say that Gospel truth could not be determined by a majority vote, be it the Nicene Creed in its era nor the gay marriage controversy today. I am quite sympathetic to this view, especially after seeing so many mainstream Christian denominations neutered and even co-opted by the Left.

I once attended a Foursquare Baptist congregation which considered mainstream Baptists sellouts for subscribing to the Nicene creed. Nice people, but lets just say that while I agreed with them on 95% of doctrinal issues, I was considered an apostate due to the 5%, sort of like the Libertarian Party.

[old and tired]

He admitted, “Either we’re right or you guys are.” Interesting. I heard a Catholic (priest or seminarian, I think) who had converted from Mormonism giving an apologetics talk on Catholic Radio. He used the exact phrase "either the Catholic Church is true or the Mormon Church is." And since the Mormon Church is false, he was led to believe the Catholic Church was true. It was fascinating stuff. He traced the history of Mormonism and their tie-in with the Masons.

[Vigilanteman]

Easy enough to check out here.

FWIW, the "Mormon edition" of both the Old and New Testament are nothing more than the King James Version with footnote references to other scripture.

I have one, along with a dozen other versions published by various sects and Bible Societies around the world.

[ArrogantBustard]

They did say that Gospel truth could not be determined by a majority vote, be it the Nicene Creed in its era nor the gay marriage controversy today.

Consider:

1) Jesus is God (consubstantial with the Father).

2) Jesus is a creature (not consubstantial with the Father).

(1) and (2) above cannot both be true ... I'm not sure how the Anabaptists propose to resolve that sort of dispute. The Catholic Church resolved that particular dispute in the Council of Nicea.

I agree that Truth is not determined by majority vote ... certainly not in the sense that it can be changed in the next majority vote.

[Vigilanteman]

Mitt Romney supposedly fixed the beer thing as a prerequisite to landing the Winter Olympics.

Romney may have had something to do with restrictions on serving it in restaurants or something like that. I'm not sure, but I can tell you that I lived in Utah briefly in 1981 and bought a six pack at the local convenience store with no hassle other than showing an ID since I was in my early 20s at the time and looked young for my age.

[Vigilanteman]

I'm not sure how the Anabaptists propose to resolve that sort of dispute.

I'm not sure how the Catholics (or the Nicene majority, for that matter) resolve the dispute about Jesus praying to God in the Garden of Gethsemane or later on the cross. Is he praying to himself?

Then there is the account of his baptism, when he arose out of the water, God's voice spoke from the heavens and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove.

And, yet, I am not so arrogant to say that any sect in the Nicene majority is not Christian. Certainly not those (including the Catholics) who have steadfastly refused to embrace homosexuality as part of their doctrine.

FWIW, this is the big part of the 5% of my disagreement with the Foursquare Baptist denomination which I used to attend and why I eventually felt unwelcome there.

[anoldafvet]

"I’m pretty sure the author is Jewish, in case you didn’t catch that."

It doesn't matter, in Utah he would still be considered a "Gentile".

[ArrogantBustard]

resolve the dispute about Jesus praying to God in the Garden of Gethsemane or later on the cross. Is he praying to himself?

There is no dispute. Jesus (the Son) is speaking to, praying to, the Father. Similarly at His Baptism, all three Persons manifested themselves. Likewise, during the Transfiguration, the Father spoke directly to all concerned. We hold that the Godhead, or the Divine Nature, is held equally by three distinct Persons (the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit).

IMO, your terminology is flawed, leading to a flawed understanding of what was going on in the Jordan, on the mountain, and again in Gethsemane. IMO, correct terminology does not resolve the dispute, but shows that there is in fact no dispute at all.

[Boogieman]

Sorry, I just assumed he was Jewish from the use of “Hebrew Scriptures” and the way he disliked the term “Old Testament”.

[Vigilanteman]

IMO, your terminology is also flawed, leading to a flawed understanding of what was going on in the Jordan, on the mountain, and again in Gethsemane.

Likewise flawed is your claim that non-Nicene subscribers believe your second statement "Jesus is a creature (not consubstantial with the Father)".

Some do. Most, in my experience, do not.

Just another reason why we have hundreds of different Christian brands and why we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm far more concerned with the 90-95% of what we agree upon and would hope that we would have the common sense to work together to defeat the forces of Satan rather casting stones at each other over the 5 to 10%.

[ArrogantBustard]

IMO, your terminology is also flawed,

Naturally. I'm a little curious, though ... In your particular church, how would you and a hypothetical fellow member of that church who believes as I do resolve your hypothetcial dispute?

Likewise flawed is your claim that non-Nicene subscribers believe your second statement "Jesus is a creature (not consubstantial with the Father)".

Cool your jets, brother. I did not and do not make that claim.

"Jesus (is|is not) of the same divine substance as the Father" is the dispute addressed by the Council of Nicea. That's an historical fact. Also an historical fact is that the Council resolved the dispute in favor of the proposition: "Jesus is of the same divine substance as the Father".

Now, as to modern groups which don't like the Nicene Creed (or creeds in general), I have said nothing. I don't know how they resolve disputes, nor do I know how they codify their beliefs. That's their problem, not mine. If they wish to explain it, that's wonderful.

[ArrogantBustard]

BTW, you really should visit Louisiana ... if for no other reason than to complete the map. Also the fresh Gulf shrimp are awesome.

[Alex Murphy]

....as to modern groups which don't like the Nicene Creed (or creeds in general), I have said nothing. I don't know how they resolve disputes, nor do I know how they codify their beliefs. That's their problem, not mine. If they wish to explain it, that's wonderful.

As I've opined elsewhere, the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants. Many "Protestant" churches, especially evangelical and non-denominational ones, reject all historic creeds as binding on themselves re matters of discipline or doctrine, and thus there is no simple way of determining whether they are "in the fold" (i.e. orthodox) or not.

By refusing to profess/acknowledge a creed, or at least publish an "articles of faith" / "doctrinal statement", these anti-creedal churches and believers functionally accomplish five things:

• a tacit a priori rejection of every prior creed and/or codification of doctrine formulated by any church body, at any and at every point in church history,
• a practical behavior, if not an outright creed-like belief and teaching, that Wisdom ended in the first century (when special revelation did), effectively dismissing any and all possible wisdom acquired by any bible-believing Christian in any post-NT church era, contrary to Proverbs 2:6-9,
• an allowance of relatively minor points of doctrine (eschatology, worship forms and practices, ecclesiastical government forms, etc) to be granted equal status with major points of doctrine (the Trinity, nature of salvation, etc),
• an allowance for doctrinal stances to shift from moment to moment, congregation to congregation, pastor to pastor, or even from week to week, without declaration or documentation,
• a willful sequestering of oneself from examination and correction by any congregation, visitors, friends, fellow believers and unbelievers, preventing all from discovering one's actual doctrinal beliefs without forcing a long, arduous and mandatory investigation.

And with that, I yield the floor.

[Zionist Conspirator]

...There are many things that you will recognize, including concepts and even scriptures, but they will be recast in a way that is weird, in fact, utterly foreign to you.

Sure, members of this relatively new faith will use the same Hebrew Bible, but they will call it something different, the “Old Testament,” which hints at a divide. They also use other authoritative books, and their method of interpretation has little to nothing to do with your own tradition. They have transformed the Passover meal into something barely recognizable to you. They profess faith in a messiah, but their idea of him is different from your own hopeful notion of the savior of the Jewish people and the world. They affirm the truth of your religion to a point, but insist on a newer, fuller revelation from God that has superseded yours, and invite you to join them in this final dispensation.

NO!!! [/ironic sarcasm]

[ArrogantBustard]

Congratulations ... that’s a step in the right direction. Or at least a refusal to take a bunch of steps in the wrong direction.

[jjotto]

Says Jeremy Lott, “The son of a Baptist minister, I converted to Catholicism as an adult...”

Making it all the more shocking that he would even recognize the analogy!

[Vigilanteman]

Both of yinz make interesting points and I congratulate you for your civility, a civility which is too often absent when some of the extreme fundamentalists get into the fray.

Too many of these are the 5% crowd. i.e. you are an apostate and an enemy if you disagree with them on just 5% of their doctrinal dogmas.

And make no mistake that they are dogmas, often in the extreme. A friend of mine observed that they are really no different than "cafeteria Catholics," only in their choices of what they select in the cafeteria.

Or, put another way:

1. Catholics take the "body of Christ" thing very literally.
   
2. Mormons take the "children of God" thing very literally.
   
3. Fundies take their private interpretation of the Bible very literally.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“I’m not sure how the Catholics (or the Nicene majority, for that matter) resolve the dispute about Jesus praying to God in the Garden of Gethsemane or later on the cross. Is he praying to himself?”

---

Obviously you don’t understand the doctrine you disagree with. The scripture does not teach Modalism. It teaches there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons who are yet one God. They have different roles all throughout the scripture, yet are the same God. For example, the Father elects. The Son Redeems. The Holy Spirit applies.

[Alex Murphy]

Too many of these ["extreme fundamentalists"] are the 5% crowd. i.e. you are an apostate and an enemy if you disagree with them on just 5% of their doctrinal dogmas. And make no mistake that they are dogmas, often in the extreme.

It's one thing to claim that someone else is damned based upon their adherence/refusal to a particular creed or statement. It's quite another thing for someone to refuse to document their own doctrines (or to change them on a whim), and then damn you for having violated them. Personality cults are spawned out of the latter behavior.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Just another reason why we have hundreds of different Christian brands and why we will have to agree to disagree.”

---

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit places you outside of Christianity. Therefore, not only can we not simply “agree to disagree” as if the issue is unimportant, we must condemn your theology as damnable and always fight it in whatever manifestation it appears.