- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I see your point Heber and Ray about the “I am a child of God” idea, however don’t most Christian religions have the same center. For centuries it has been the battle of “what makes our religion different -real”. In Mormonism we seem to have lots of variables in the “what makes us the real church” department. Is it – the BofM or Priesthood Authority or Personal Revelation? To me the OP was asking that question and by the quote from our church manual it could be deduced that the BofM is the defining factor. I don’t personally know which anchor to anchor our uniqueness on, I just thought I would throw out a President of the Church centered list that gives points to ponder. As a people we often jump on whatever bandwagon is preached by the top and if a co-worker or non-member neighbor were to ask us what is the key to our church, I would expect that the answer would change depending on the churches focus of the time. Looking at it’s history I think I am on course.
Catholicism always anchors in Peter, Evangelicilism – the Word, and Us? Well – Great question.
mom3 wrote:I see your point Heber and Ray about the “I am a child of God” idea, however don’t most Christian religions have the same center.
I think what sets the church apart is that we embrace all the implications of being a child of god. God is our father, we must have a mother, we grow up to become like our parents, we view god’s love for us through a familiar parent/child relationship lens, etc. That relationship inspired our theology.
I had this concept of being a child of god before discovering the church but it didn’t have the same weight. We were all brothers and sisters but the relationship had more of a creator/creation feel, less intimate.
There’s the famous Joseph Smith interaction with Martin Van Buren:
Quote:In our interview with the President, he interrogated us wherein we differed in our religion from the other religions of the day. Brother Joseph said we differed in mode of baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. We considered that all other considerations were contained in the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Not very specific or remarkably unique but that’s what was recorded.
I think “Follow the prophet” is a good summary of a strong doctrinal foundation of the LDS Church. No doubt about it, and I would never argue otherwise. I simply would make two points: 1) That foundation is nowhere close to unique in the LDS Church. It is the core foundation of all of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, as well), with a few denominational exceptions. The only difference is the object of the summary: Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Peter, Paul, the Pope, Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith, Thomas Monson, etc. We are nowhere close to the only people, even Christians, who “follow the prophet” as a primary focus of our religion.
2) Mormonism is unique, with a very few exceptions, in embracing theosis (becoming like God) so literally and comprehensively and in seeing God in such humanistic terms. (a tangible body of flesh and bones) As nibbler said, that is what I mean by embracing all of the implications of believing “I am a child of God”. The more mainstream view of that statement rejects the Mormon construct as damnable heresy, since it sees such a view as demeaning God; the Mormon view of that statement rejects the Christian mainstream construct as damnable heresy, since it sees such a view as truly damning (stopping progression) and limiting God.
Again, this is what Mormonism boils down to for me – the one eternal round within which I believe everything can be circumscribed. I don’t really care that others see it differently, since I don’t think it’s possible to get to the one true result in this case with which everyone can agree.
We probably need to consider the idea that Mormonism doesn’t boil down to just one thing, and/or that it boils down to different things for different people. We talk about black and white thinkers frequently here – but this is looking like one of those things where there isn’t black and white and there are no pigeon holes. mom3 wrote:For centuries it has been the battle of “what makes our religion different -real”. In Mormonism we seem to have lots of variables in the “what makes us the real church” department. Is it – the BofM or Priesthood Authority or Personal Revelation?
That might be a slightly, but related question to ask what makes us different as opposed to what mormonism boils down to. But you make a good point. And maybe asking that helps clarify my answer when I think of it in those terms.Internally focused as if speaking to another mormon…I think mormons would tell each other it boils down to the temple and saving ordinances because it is all about Moses1:39 and that we are children of God in the plan of salvation. All we are asked to do comes from being worthy to get temple ordinances for our exaltation as eternal families. Externally focused as if speaking to a non-member…explaining it to others might focus a bit more on what makes us unique or different, in which case, the main message is more likely the restoration of the Church from when Christ setup the church, and with it authority for restored revelation, and with that the family focus for eternal families. Just looking at mormon.org and lookind at “What is Mormonism…” they start the answer with this:
Quote:When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He organized His Church so that all people could receive His gospel and return one day to live with God, our Heavenly Father. After Jesus Christ died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven, His Apostles continued to receive revelation from Him through the Holy Ghost on how to direct the work of His Church. However, after they were killed, members changed the teachings of the Church that He had established. While many good people and some truth remained, this Apostasy, or general falling away from the truth, brought about the withdrawal of the Church from the earth (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; Acts 20:29-30). The Apostle Peter prophesied that Jesus would restore His Church before His Second Coming (Acts 3:19-21).
Jesus Christ began to restore His Church in its fulness to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1820. It has grown to become a worldwide Church with over 13 million members. It has the same teachings and basic organization as the Church established by Jesus in New Testament times.
Perhaps, then…Mormonism boils down to …the Church.
…but I like DJ’s answer. It is most likely the most accurate…but not what they will put on Mormon.org Heber13 wrote:…but I like DJ’s answer. It is most likely the most accurate…but not what they will put on Mormon.org
I agree with you, Heber, and it’s not going to be on the front page of LDS.org anytime soon, either. I could see Pres. Uchtdorf making nuanced reference to the idea, though.
Since I don’t believe Christ did actually organize a church or that the current church is exactly like whatever organization there was then, the Mormon.org thing doesn’t work for me anyway. I think we take that idea of the current church organization being like the one Jesus organized too much at the word of those who say it – without really thinking about it too much. Some would say many things are like that, and I would have to agree there are other things like that. That’s why it doesn’t boil down to the church for me. Not to be too heretical, but I think there comes a point where the church has done all it can for many individuals (be that ordinances, socialization, or whatever) and is really no longer needed by them. Part of my faith transition actually has been that I can live without the church and still believe and live the gospel, though I do sometimes enjoy the social aspects of it (still working on DW about not going to the Memorial Day picnic).
For us on this board, as well as when we interact with more orthodox members, Mormonism boils down to whatever you feel strongest about. Best part of that – there is plenty to choose from.
Perfect, concise summary, mom3. :thumbup: Old-Timer wrote:I think “Follow the prophet” is a good summary of a strong doctrinal foundation of the LDS Church. No doubt about it, and I would never argue otherwise. I simply would make two points: 1) That foundation is nowhere close to unique in the LDS Church. It is the core foundation of all of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, as well), with a few denominational exceptions.
The only difference is the object of the summary: Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Peter, Paul, the Pope, Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith, Thomas Monson, etc. We are nowhere close to the only people, even Christians, who “follow the prophet” as a primary focus of our religion.I still see quite a few differences between the LDS Church and most of these examples. Do Lutherans really venerate Luther as a prophet and quote him the way Mormons quote current and previous leaders as if it is true simply because they said so? Do Presbyterians look at Calvin anyway near the way Mormons view Joseph Smith? My impression was that Luther and Calvin mostly interpreted the Bible a certain way rather than claiming special revelations that have equal authority as canonized scriptures. I doubt that a very high percentage of Catholics specifically avoided using condoms simply because John Paul II said so the way a significant number of Mormons have felt like it was their duty to have as many children as possible due to comments by David O McKay, Spencer W. Kimball, and other Church leaders.
The only one of these examples that looks like it really compares to the level of seriousness with which typical followers take what their accepted prophet(s) said is Islam and in that case the obvious difference is that it is primarily one past prophet they defer to the most but in our case it is many past and living apostles and Church presidents all regarded as prophets, seers, and revelators which has had a cumulative effect of the Church acquiring more and more expectations over time while making it hard for the current leaders to contradict what past leaders have already said. Basically in terms of how seriously Mormons take what current leaders say as if they speak directly for God, the LDS Church is fairly unique and the only other cases I have heard of similar to this are relatively small sects like the FLDS.
DarkJedi wrote:We probably need to consider the idea that
Mormonism doesn’t boil down to just one thing, and/or that it boils down to different things for different people.We talk about black and white thinkers frequently here – but this is looking like one of those things where there isn’t black and white and there are no pigeon holes. Maybe so but if someone thinks Mormonism means something significantly different from, “Follow the Prophet” to them that doesn’t implicitly include this major tenet as well then that’s just their opinion, not official institutionalized LDS Mormonism and other active Church members will still expect them to follow the LDS prophets in what they say and do. For example, suppose I don’t see what the current WoW interpretation has to do with loving God or my neighbor; does that mean I can drink coffee or beer in front of TBMs without them freaking out and judging me? Of course not, and why not?; mostly because it goes against what Church leaders have taught in recent decades and the WoW is an explicit requirement in temple worthiness interviews, that’s why.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:DarkJedi wrote:We probably need to consider the idea that
Mormonism doesn’t boil down to just one thing, and/or that it boils down to different things for different people.We talk about black and white thinkers frequently here – but this is looking like one of those things where there isn’t black and white and there are no pigeon holes. Maybe so but if someone thinks Mormonism means something significantly different from, “Follow the Prophet” to them that doesn’t implicitly include this major tenet as well then that’s just their opinion, not official institutionalized LDS Mormonism and other active Church members will still expect them to follow the LDS prophets in what they say and do. For example, suppose I don’t see what the current WoW interpretation has to do with loving God or my neighbor; does that mean I can drink coffee or beer in front of TBMs without them freaking out and judging me? Of course not, and why not?; mostly because it goes against what Church leaders have taught in recent decades and the WoW is an explicit requirement in temple worthiness interviews, that’s why.
So are you saying that all of us either have to believe it boils down to follow the prophet or we’re screwed? In that case I’m not the only one here who is screwed.
Personally speaking, even in my more orthodox days I didn’t keep the WoW because I thought I was following the prophet, I did so because I thought it was a commandment. Now I keep my own understanding of it because I think it’s a pretty good idea. I kept the WoW throughout my years of inactivity for the same reason – but were I not living it I don’t think I would insult my LDS friends who thought I was living it by opening a beer or drinking coffee with them present.
I think part of the point of this thread is that we are taught so many things – including following the prophet – that it’s hard to decide what it really means to be a member of the church. I’m not sure follow the prophet sums it up, but I’m sure there are many members who do believe that. We don’t all have to believe the same things, and there is no “Do you follow the prophet?” TR question (noting, of course, that some people could interpret following the prophet as sustaining the prophet and therefore believe we are asked that).
Yes, DA, many members of other denominations follow the prophet pretty much exactly like many Mormons do – while many don’t. I have MANY friends who are members of MANY denominations, so that is not conjecture. I also work at a Cathoilc university that takes its common faith very seriously and see all iterations of belief there. The more liberal Protestant denominations have a smaller percentage of members who reference modern figures as regularly as we do in the LDS Church, but even many of them view the Biblical prophets in the same general way. The difference isn’t the denomination; it is the mindset of the person.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:For example, suppose I don’t see what the current WoW interpretation has to do with loving God or my neighbor; does that mean I can drink coffee or beer in front of TBMs without them freaking out and judging me? Of course not, and why not?; mostly because it goes against what Church leaders have taught in recent decades and the WoW is an explicit requirement in temple worthiness interviews, that’s why.
I agree with you on this DA. I think most people just simply don’t think deeply about it…it is something you “just don’t do as a mormon”…you “can’t do that”. It is almost unthinkable to believe in the church and to do those things without being fallen. If you ask “why?”…I think you get a myriad of reasons as people try to think up something that makes sense…like the church leaders, or commandments, or scriptures or or chemical properties of coffee and caffeine or science is changing but God is constant, or we just don’t know reasons yet but someday will….all things that have been taught over the years in church to reaffirm things to ourselves as mormons.Part of being in a group is accepting the group rules. Those rules are determined by leaders, and following them is part of your commitment to the group.
But to mormonism’s credit…the leaders try to remind us that it isn’t all about obedience and rules…there are reasons behind the rules and blessings when we live according to them…so the intent is for blessings that they believe will go to people by obeying rules and not for control of people…although sometimes that looks awfully similar from the outside.
The other element to consider in this discussion is that it is hard to say what Mormonism boils down to…because the reasons that give us meaning behind obedience change over time. Right now…a lot seems to be about the temple and eternal families and so that is why you obey the WoW. It hasn’t always been that way for every generation. The reasons that resonate with people may adapt to what is meaningful to people at the time.
For me, Mormonism always boiled down to the ability to have an acknowledged personal relationship with God. No matter what was said in church, I could go to God and decide for myself whether those presented ideas were good things for me or for my family. Currently, I see the pendulum of church doctrine swung far away from personal revelation. It is currently focused on “Follow the Leaders. Follow the Prophet. Don’t chose your own path. Don’t ask for personal confirmation.” I feel that the pendulum is just starting to swing back a little bit towards a more personal journey. Because the pendulum was swung the other direction for so long, I don’t expect to see the pendulum shift without drama and angst within the community. But the pendulum will shift, it will gain momentum. And it just takes a single generation before a population thinks things have always been handled the same way. Our population is seen as marching in lock step in so many ways. It will be interesting to see what unifies us as a people as the pendulum swings and our natural individual diversities become more apparent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.