- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I personally believe the following are principles of pure Mormonism. It is by no means an exhaustive list; in fact, I’m going to start by listing only a few that are my own individual favorites: 1)
There is a God, our “Father”– at the very least in the sense of one who created intelligent agents who could grow and progress to become Gods themselves. (or, in different words, who are gods in nature and who can becomes Gods through development) The essence of this principle has been coined most succinctly as, “I am a child of God.” Imo, everything else is a secondary principle to this. 2)
A father speaks to his children – in some way.This principle includes Prophets, apostles and other religious leaders, but it also encompasses personal, individual revelation. I also include in this principle the Mormon concept of the light of Christ (that all have something divine embedded within them) and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (which, to me, might be nothing more than a formal, ordinal encouragement to recognize and “tune in” to the embedded divine). 3)
There must needs be opposition in ALL things.I could write a book about this one, but I will say here only that this principle is at odds with a comprehensive, black-and-white, knowledge-only-based perspective on life and is expressed generally in Paul’s, “Now we see through a glass, darkly.” It also means that there is bitter fruit and good fruit growing throughout “the vineyard”, which means there is good and bad in ALL organizations and religions and individuals. 4)
Jesus, of Nazareth, was, in some way, God made man– and his life and death, in some way, had/has power to take us from mortal man to God. “In some way” is key to me, with the core principle being “come unto me” and “be perfected in Christ” (whole, complete, fully developed). That process of being perfected in Christ is called “The Atonement” – and it differs from “grace” in its dominant Protestant iteration only in its scope. (meaning pure Mormonism extends the possibility of Atonement universally to all who are born, while Protestantism generally restricts both the definition and application of grace to a much smaller group of people) There are more, obviously, but I believe a LARGE number of “doctrines” are nothing more than attempts to flesh out the principles (not principles themselves) – and many of the issues we address here and that are part of our communal church experience are little more than attempts to understand the core principles and put some kind of practical form to them.
What do you think about these four things? What other principles would you include as part of pure Mormonism?In some form or another, we are divine beings, of the same substance and nature as the force that organized and creates further organization in the universe (aka “God). By that, I think Pure Mormonism contains this idea that takes people’s thought in a different direction than the rest of Christianity. We are not creatures that God created for some whim of a purpose (like just to worship this being, or as some form of pets). We are a part of God, co-existent with whatever God is.
This took on more specific definition through theological speculation — kingdoms, a pre-existence story, etc.
I would add, though I don’t really understand it, the eastern orthodox doctrine of theosis, that Christ’s atonement was to enable us to become like God. I think it’s different that the idea of progression and exaltation and more like giving us the ability to be become what we are meant to be. I just mentioned this on another thread, but another key principle for me is: We are responsible personally for what we ultimately become.From the foundational choice to accept the Father’s plan and follow the Son to “punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” to “agents unto themselves” to “not commanded in all things” to the emphasis on covenants as reciprocal promises (and many more), our theology is founded on the principle of agency – that we play one of the central, ACTIVE roles in our destiny.
Would add the following (which I view positively): * Revelation and scripture did not end with the Bible. The canon is open.
* Adam fell that men might be. (View Adam as mankind, that’s what the Hebrew word means)
* God is a supporter of free will, the Devil wishes us to be robotic.
* Erm, something about temples and families probably!
I think Pure Mormonism would also include: – The Book of Mormon is the word of God, like the Bible.
– God has used prophets in our day to restore priesthood power to bind things in heaven, as on earth, such as saving ordinances in and out of the temple
– Our existence here on earth is centered in gaining experience through our choices
…Also connected to that, and as alluded to in the original post, opposition in all things is necessary to God’s plan, and as Sam stated, God defends Free Will
Yeah, can’t be emphasized too much, although of course there are certain choices which take away our free will, e.g. getting into addiction. But it is a godly defense against detractors of a certain type. I’m in agreement with pretty much all the points mentioned. But other than the references to the BoM and temples, how does this relate to the foundational events of Mormonism, the first vision, restoration of the priesthood, etc.? What if those are in doubt for someone. The principles would be good in any theology but do they spring from God’s revelations to JS? If a person can’t or doesn’t believe that, where are you left? Great question, GB. In my own “expanded” wording, I would add:
Joseph Smith was sincere and had personally powerful spiritual experiences that led to the formation of the LDS Church.I think issues like visit vs. vision, BofM historicity vs. inspired transmission, attempts to practice plural marriage and eternal sealing in various forms, etc. can fit within that principle regardless of which view members take – as long as the foundational assumption is not that Joseph was an intentional and conscious fraud. If that’s the view, staying LDS is only for practical reasons – but I personally think those reasons can be legitimate and compelling without casting people as dishonest or weak in any way. I’ve said for years that you shouldn’t have to be a believer to attend church – and there are lots of non-members who attend regularly without charges of hypocrisy or lack of integrity.
Good thoughts. I personally don’t really see how the BoM or temples really fits the criteria of Ray’s vision of “pure mormonism”. I don’t think they are necessary for one to practice the concept – and what I mean by that, is I believe there are thousands/millions of people who actually do believe in what Ray describes as “pure mormonism,” that don’t belong to the mormon church, and some may have never even heard of the LDS faith. ????
I think the concept of “pure mormonism” is
universal– and I’m okay with this pathway that we, and 13 million others have chosen, but if pure mormonism is TRUE, than temples and BoM really, IMO, are not part of it. I don’t think god works that way – I don’t think he would put those kind of restrictions on himself or his “children.” Just my two cents worth.
I would add my personal theology of pure mormonism —- Teach men correct principles and let them govern themselves -mankind must work out their own salvation. Let men worship who, where or what he may.
Just had a thought of clarification. IMO, JS understood some universal laws of god —- “pure mormonism”. I believe that temples and the BoM are tools that JS came up with to teach people those true principles and help them put their lives in order, so they could better live them. Whether the temples and BoM were inspired directly from god is certainly debatable. I personally think they are “good,” to use Apostle Paul’s terminology, and even though I may not believe they are truly necessary, I get the idea and the purpose behind them, and I am okay with it.
Amen, cwald. Both of your comments are profound, imo. Thanks for adding that insight. I also believe “pure Mormonism” is universal, so I would put the BofM under the “God speaks to all his children” category – with more than one possible application.
cwald wrote:Good thoughts.
I personally don’t really see how the BoM or temples really fits the criteria of Ray’s vision of “pure mormonism”.
I agree with cwald on this — although I would say it doesn’t fit my criteria of what pure Mormonism is.
For me, pure Mormonism encompasses the general life principles that the Savior espoused, along with a number of other principles that are profound and meaningful to anyone living their life, and that are unique to our religion. I think the opportunity for eternal progression is one. That scripture isn’t limited to only the Bible given God’s greatness and ability to talk to whoever and whenever He pleases. That truth is arrived at through personal revelation as the foundation. That there are opportunities beyond this life for people to receive knowledge they missed in this life….that there are degrees of glory, and that even the telestial kingdom is a better place. That our eternal destiny is based on both faith and works, and the grace of God. Eternal family is another….the physical nature of God and his separateness from Christ is another. That the Plan of Salvation is fair and doesn’t penalize people who were at a disadvantage in this life. The Plan of Salvation itself….all these things are good and I think, unique to our religion.
cwald wrote:
I personally don’t really see how the BoM or temples really fits the criteria of Ray’s vision of “pure mormonism”. I don’t think they are necessary for one to practice the concept – and what I mean by that, is I believe there are thousands/millions of people who actually do believe in what Ray describes as “pure mormonism,” that don’t belong to the mormon church, and some may have never even heard of the LDS faith. ????.
I would disagree that the Book of Mormon is not pure Mormonism. The restoration movement hinged on the prophet restoring truths, and many (not all) were found in the Book of Mormon that were “lost” from the Bible. To me, faith in pure Mormonism has roots in the knowledge God imparted, so to have faith you must first have knowledge of what to believe in.Quote:I would disagree that the Book of Mormon is not pure Mormonism. The restoration movement hinged on the prophet restoring truths, and many (not all) were found in the Book of Mormon that were “lost” from the Bible. To me, faith in pure Mormonism has roots in the knowledge God imparted, so to have faith you must first have knowledge of what to believe in.
Interesting. I ask this respectfully and am interested in opinion. Question. If Heber is correct, than can one find the “TRUTH” on his own or through other sources, or is it only found in the BoM? That the BoM contains “truth” is a not the debate today, let’s just assume it is truth. My question is then, is it the
onlyplace where it can be found? Do all men have to rely on JS and BoM to receive salvation and exaltation? If one can find the truth from other sources, even god himself, why is the BoM necessary? Serious question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.