- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In his Mormon’s and the Bible, Philip Barlow argues that Mormons have much in common with Protestants, Catholics and Jews. In his American Religion, Harold Bloom contrasts the movement carried by the leadership of Brigham Young with the religion created by the genius of Joseph Smith. Bloom sees Mormonism as its own religion: the most recent to emerge. At times he even seems to abandon his pursuit of objectivity as he praises the Prophet’s creative genius. As a US Army Chaplain, the Department of Defense sees me as a Protestant. All Christian Chaplains are either Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. In my case, I am a Protestant Chaplain, whose denomination happens to be LDS. Of course, the case is made stronger by the fact that I went to a Methodist liberal arts college, and then a seminary, and finally served as an assistant Pastor for a Protestant congregation prior to entering the chaplaincy. Even if Joseph Smith envisioned a new world religion, many of the more revolutionary aspects he introduced have moved to the background and more mainstream doctrines and practices have taken their prominent positions of concern in the minds of Church members.
In a previous post I shared my view that I believe my membership in the Restored Church does not preclude my membership in the traditional church. My countless experiences in formal ministry have helped me reach this conclusion. However, I have also come to realize that I am vulnerable to my need for others’ acceptance of me. I have sometimes been disingenuous in how I presented the Church and/or my beliefs with others in an effort to accentuate similarities over differences. Both as an institutional body (the Church) and as individuals, we stress our Christianity at the expense of what very likely is an even larger category of belief. Of course, this is not an either-or issue. The Church has more in common with Protestant Christianity than any other tradition. This is especially the case as the institution implicitly reacts to criticism from a vocal, conservative minority (numerous examples would go here). But I fear this is more reactionary than responsive. The pendulum swings in knee-jerk reaction to what we think others think about us, rather than responding to who we think God wants us to be. As a result, we have lost some of our more distinctive (though not necessarily unique) beliefs and practices. I wonder, do we have the courage to be peculiar when it matters most?
The desire for acceptance is a strong human drive as part of our Ego insecurity. In the LDS Church for example, we simply hate to have anybody suggest we are not Christian. I’m not sure what we should do with all that. Speaking for myself, I’m not that worried anymore whether or not I am considered a Christian, so long as I am seeking pure love and light, truth and knowledge. IMHO most of what happens on Mormon Sundays is very Protestant in form, even if the stuff about the Apostasy, Prophets and BoM isn’t. However, what goes on in the temple isn’t Protestant at all. Yeah, ime, investigating Catholics tend to have a harder time than investigating Protestants – but convert Catholics tend to have much less problem with the temple than convert Protestants. As to the question in the title, I would say both at the micro level (varying radically by location) and a swan, generally, at the macro level.
Actually another curious conundrum I’ve noticed is that Catholic Europe – Republic of Ireland, Poland, the Mediterranean etc doesn’t take well to Mormonism, and yet Latin America, which is highly Catholic does. Why is that? Eternal marriage, garments and the Pearl of Great Price, none of which are particularly Protestant. Strangely enough, a lot of the Book of Mormon is…
Tom Haws wrote:Speaking for myself, I’m not that worried anymore whether or not I am considered a Christian, so long as I am seeking pure love and light, truth and knowledge.
I like this response. Well said, Tom.It seems to me that certain labels are important to certain groups. I’m not sure I understand why some are exclusive to the term “Christian”, and why they would want to exclude Mormons as such.
Okay guys, got it. But this idea isn’t as much about how others see me as how I see myself. The whole “are Mormons Christians?” thing is exhausting, and most of us have moved beyond that (even if those around us haven’t–my perpetual situation). The claim here is moving from the historical to the experiential: did Joseph Smith do more than “restore” Christianity; did he not also found a new world religion? As an institution, the Church can be seen as reacting to conservative Protestant claims that it isn’t Christian, etc. As individuals, many of us may be reactionary as well. My experience is most Latter-day Saints are. (I still am.) I see it less in this forum than elsewhere, but I still see it: word choice, tone, context. I believe this prevents us from experiencing certain benefits tied to the broader, non-traditional teachings of the Prophet. One of many examples is how faith allows us to transcend the historical debate between freewill/determinism or works/grace in the context of salvation-exaltation. I guess a question, if not thequestion in my mind is, “If Mormonism is bigger than or transcends Christianity, what does this mean about the central role of Jesus?” For someone who wears a cross on his chest and allows that symbol to inform my life, that’s pretty big. I look forward to all thoughts. Thanks.
Nathan
There are Protestant aspects to the church, but it has gone beyond them. Actually if you think about it though, the whole concept of the Restoration and the Apostasy are logical extensions of Protestantism…
Frankly, I see more similarities in the “big picture” theology of Mormonism to Buddhism than to most of Christianity – and I really can understand why other Christians say we aren’t Christian. When I use the standard LDS Church vocabulary, I call it a restoration of ALL things – not just all things Christian. (Just as quick examples: There is a strong strain of reincarnation in our theology – even though it is not the classic Buddhist version. There is a strong sense of focus on finding and creating ancestral ties – even though it is not the classic Shinto, Buddhist or Catholic version. It’s much more of a combination – a melding of theologies, if you will. There are MANY examples of this within Mormonism.)
How does that affect my view of Jesus? It really doesn’t affect the core of how I view him and his mission, but it does expand his role for me.
Whether I view his life and death as having a literal saving component or as being purely symbolic(and by “purely” I mean “fully” not “merely”), I see “Jesus” as a universal Savior and his life and death as a universal model. (much like the name “Elias” means simply one who is sent to represent, leading to someone being “an Elias” – and much like “Adam” being a universal designator of “man” and “Eve” being “mother” – and much like we speak of individuals being “Saviors on Mount Zion”) In this view, the terms Savior, Redeemer, Creator, Judge – and even God – become conditions and roles rather than unique titles for only one Being – with Jesus becoming the one who is the Exemplar of all these conditions and roles to bring us toward Godhood, not just God. He is the Model of one who became man to become God again – and, in so doing, bridged the previously unbridgeable chasm that lay between GOD and his children. He “marked the path and led the way” NOT just to God, but to Godhood. He is not just God, but rather he also is me – and you and all. To me, pure Mormonism isn’t about Christianity; rather, it’s about Christ and Father as emulative goals for all. It’s not about a chosen people; it’s about humanity being chosen. It’s not about us OR God; it’s about a real, binding relationship between us AND God, our Father (and, beautifully, Mother). It’s not about individual salvation; it’s about inter-connected unity and exaltation. I know that gets lost often in the clash between theology (“Mormonism”) and organization (“LDS Church”), but this post asks about Mormonism, not the LDS Church – and the transcendent nature of Mormonism largely keeps me aligned “faithfully” to the LDS Church. It’s what makes that duck a unique and singular swan for me, to a large degree – or, more precisely, it’s the venue in which we are taught that we ducks actually are created to become swans and that the same is true of all around us.
Finally, Christianity, as it is conceived and presented and believed by many, many Christians, isn’t truly a universal theology. (It is for some, most notably many Catholics, but it is not for many, most notably the vast majority of Protestants.) It’s a world-wide religion, but it’s not a universal theology – nor even universal for this world. It doesn’t posit that even the majority will be saved, much less that all will be saved and an unknown number exalted. (a larger number, imo, than even most Mormons believe) Mormonism really is a world-wide religion with a universal theology – and it posits Jesus as the great mediator / savior / redeemer of all creation (even in “other worlds”). Again, whether or not that is taken literally or figuratively / symbolically, it is a transcendent concept that is fundamentally different than the view of Jesus within the rest of Christianity.
Jesus really is different in Mormonism than in Christianity – primarily because he isn’t limited to being a Christian Savior / Redeemer / God within Mormonism.
Ray–well done, friend! Your reply reflects a great deal of thought on the subject (I’m guessing over the course of many years).
Old-Timer wrote:Whether I view his life and death as having a literal saving component or as being purely symbolic(and by “purely” I mean “fully” not “merely”), I see “Jesus” as a universal Savior and his life and death as a universal model. ( As a young missionary I taught against the belief that Jesus was merely a good man or teacher. (This line of argument is similar to the one used to claim that the Prophet Joseph Smith is either a Prophet or a charlatan; there is no third option if he’s not as he claims to be.) As a student of religion, I became acquainted with people who actually believed this, and I felt bad for them, as much as I could understand them. As I continued my education and went on to seminary I met people across this particular spectrum who, for example, didn’t think it was necessary that Jesus be resurrected to be a savior. I observed that some of these people were highly committed ministers, whose faith, as far as I could tell, displayed a deep and abiding faith; this really messed with my head. In time, I have come to appreciate this view, to the extent that I can respectfully interact with those who function from it, even though I cannot fully assent to it.
In my ministry prior to the chaplaincy I worked with key religious leaders from nearly every denomination and religious tradition. I worked closely with them, even the less well known like the Zoroastrians, Jains, Sikhs and Bahai’s. At nights I would teach world religion at a college in Chicago, and these friends were happy to speak to my classes from the context of their traditions. For many of those I came to know, their character and countenance demonstrated not only their piety, but I learned more about God and my relationship to AND with God as a result of my interaction with them. My relationships with these men and women made me a better person; they made me a better Christian and Latter-day Saint. After having daily experiences of this nature over the course of 5 years, I was confronted with some pretty serious questions my fellow seminarians wrestled with only in the realm of theory and speculation. My thesis in Seminary addressed the question of relating to the religious other; what were the grounds, limitations, etc.? But even then, and even more so now (7 years later), I have to acknowledge a “pre” or even “non-rational” explanation for how my repeated encounters with God in others’ traditions and spaces makes sense in light of universal faith claims: such as that there is “no other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved [than Jesus Christ]” (Acts 4:12), or even that the LDS Church “is the only true and living Church on the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30).
Pre-rational or even non-rational approaches to the most important questions one can ask seem risky. But these are the only way I know how to still hold dear the regular and affirming experiences I have that there are goodness and blessings in applying gospel principles to my life. My senses are heightened, and my purpose renewed when I “yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit” and “let virtue garnish [my] thoughts”. As I have done so, my “confidence” has “wax[ed] strong”. A gentle “peace that surpasses understanding” has seemed to “distill” upon me “as the dews of heaven”; for me, poetry is the best way to describe this law of the harvest. Is “transcendence” the best way to describe the apparent conflict here? Maybe. I’m honestly not sure. But continuing to ask the difficult questions within the contexts of faith and covenant (and while doing good) works, and works well–even though it seems like it shouldn’t. (I’ve digressed, but perhaps it will help you see me more clearly.)
Ray your following point demonstrates rare insight:
Old-Timer wrote:
Finally, Christianity, as it is conceived and presented and believed by many, many Christians, isn’t truly a universal theology. (It is for some, most notably many Catholics, but it is not for many, most notably the vast majority of Protestants.) It’s a world-wide religion, but it’s not a universal theology – nor even universal for this world. It doesn’t posit that even the majority will be saved, much less that all will be saved and an unknown number exalted. (a larger number, imo, than even most Mormons believe) Mormonism really is a world-wide religion with a universal theology – and it posits Jesus as the great mediator / savior / redeemer of all creation (even in “other worlds”). Again, whether or not that is taken literally or figuratively / symbolically, it is a transcendent concept that is fundamentally different than the view of Jesus within the rest of Christianity.Jesus really is different in Mormonism than in Christianity – primarily because he isn’t limited to being a Christian Savior / Redeemer / God within Mormonism.
Latter-day Saints are often criticized by other Christians for their “low Christology”; we claim Jesus is our brother, etc. But a fair response to this could easily be: we don’t have a
lowChristology, but rather a highanthropology: God intends us to be like God is. The question for which I still don’t have a fully suitable answer is what is Jesus’ role in this transformation/maturation process, and whether it is universal in its application or limitation? Finally, Ray, you also made the distinction between the LDS Church as an organization and Mormonism as a theology and world-wide religion. In all fairness to the countless men and women of ages past who lived faithfully, I believe we also owe the same privileged differentiation to Christianity: it is a theology, and world-wide religion; the various movements and denominations are what limit them from the same universality.
Thank you for the open thoughts.
Nathan
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.