Posted on 07/28/2009 10:54:56 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
By Aaron Shafovaloff
Christians who attempt to engage in meaningful dialog with their Mormon friends are often frustrated by the way teachings and beliefs can be obfuscated and downplayed. When a question is posed by a Christian they are many times told that a particular teaching “is not official.” Behind this are the assumptions that that the religion of Mormonism is immune to any fatal criticism if it involves anything outside the scope of officiality, and that evangelical engagement should be limited to that which is binding upon Mormon members.
One problem with this is that the Mormon Church has no binding and official position on what con-stitutes a binding and official position. Mormon leaders and thinkers have proposed a variety of approaches to defining what constitutes official doctrine, not one being settled upon. Multiple things must be taken into account. First, and most important, Mormons have been taught that they enjoy a continual stream of prophetic counsel and revelation, and that their leaders will never lead them astray. They have also been taught that “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” 1980). A sense has been fostered that the living leadership is for members a more direct line to God than ancient scripture. But Mormonism also attempts to esteem its scriptures and ensure some stability. When leaders have gone especially awry, subsequent generations of leaders have downplayed prior teachings by appealing to the boundaries of scriptures (that the previous leaders failed to stay within). In short, Mormonism teeters between maximalism and minimalism.
In my study I have so far identified three general Mormon approaches to the standard of officiality:
sola scriptura – The Standard Works are the final and alone binding source of authority. If it is not in scripture, or if it is not inferred by scripture, it is not doctrinal and it is not binding.
prima scriptura – Scripture is the highest, most final binding source of authority, but it is not the only source of that which is binding and doctrinal. Other sources, such as current church leadership (considered lesser because they are compared with scripture and discarded if in contradiction with scripture) are also binding.
prima ecclesia – Modern church leadership is the highest, most final binding source of authority and doctrine, and may override other sources of authority and doctrine, like scripture, if there is contradiction. This is rarely done by direct repudiation and instead is done by re-interpreting, making obsolete, or questioning the preservation of a particular text. When addressing the question of whether living leaders trump scripture, or vice versa, BYU professor Robert Millet admits with refreshing honesty:
“I think most Latter-day Saints would be prone to answer this by pointing out the value and significance of living oracles, or continuing revelation, or ongoing divine direction through modern apostles and prophets, and thus to conclude that living prophets take precedence over canonized scripture” (Claiming Christ, p.31).
Should We Stop Addressing Old Teachings and Non-Official Beliefs?
Rather than endorsing this mainstream approach, Millet goes on in the book to promote an approach much like prima scriptura.
There are nuances and ambiguities to the above three models, but you get the basic idea. My contention is that Mormonism oscillates between varying models to keep alive the theme of the “continuing revelation” as well as enforce some regulatory sanity.
BYU professors who promote the need for modern prophets to understand ancient prophets often violate their own stated principles in their interpretation of the watershed passage 2 Nephi 25:23 (“…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”). They obstinately reject the usage and interpretation from general conference and modern church publications, preferring instead their own personal interpretations. Minimalists like Millet say that we need modern leaders to understand ancient scripture, but seem to only selectively apply the principle.
Here are some issues Christians need to take into consideration:
1. We care about what the Mormon mainstream people and individual persons actually believe. When they believe something the institution doesn't strictly, officially bless (according to some particular model of doctrine and authority), it still matters with regard to the spiritual condition of their individual heart.
2. The institution, regardless of the lack of formal approval, still ought to bear responsibility for acquiescing to unrepudiated longstanding beliefs that were initiated or at least fostered by Mormon leadership or by the implications of the traditional Mormon worldview.
3. Regardless of whether a particular Mormon individual agrees or doesn't agree with important teachings that have been recently been promoted from institutional Mormon channels of influence, that Mormon's spiritual heart condition is also related to his or her willingness to be a part of such an institution that tolerates and/or teaches such things.
4. Regardless of how old a particular Mormon teaching is, it can still have bearing on whether a person today should choose to become or remain Mormon. There are plenty of old teachings that have been abandoned by Mormonism that still call into question the reliability and integrity of the historic succession of alleged prophets and apostles. Remember, it only takes one false prophecy or one public heresy about the nature of God—especially one not repented over—to make a prophet false.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edelman
Edelman works for the Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). While details of their work on the account are scarce, in 1997 Edelman did the PR for re-enactment of thousands of Mormons travelling from Illinois to Utah in covered wagons. [6]
What crowd would that be?
My observations related to clergy. I used to think that it was great that they served without pay until I realized that they weren’t the ones “tending” the flock as it relates to teaching the scriptures. I found that most of the bishopric were quite lacking in their knowledge of the scriptures. Most had an extremely difficult time with public speaking and the information would be lost because you couldn’t understand what it was they were saying.
Members were “assigned” topics and were given ~ 15 minutes to present a talk on the topic. It was told to me that it was “so we may become more enlightened on the topic”.
But if we are the only ones who spend the time researching it, studying it and preparing a talk, who else benefits? Because by the time the speaker gets past their “nervous” introduction, it’s almost time to wrap it up for the next speaker. Very little knowledge is imparted unto the congregation.
I’ve since begun listening to pastors and preachers and have noticed that they have extensive knowledge on the topic they are addressing. They have the background and education required for them to be able to present the information in such a way that lets the congregants understand/comprehend what is being taught. They know their members and can start presenting topics that are of relevance to the needs of their congregation. Not following a boilerplate schedule that tells them on week 1 of month 6 the topic is _______________.
My “admiration” of no paid clergy has since turned to skepticism because the burden of truth and teaching has been placed squarely on the shoulders of the congregant “teaching/talking” about the topic. Someone who hasn’t been “schooled” in the scripture is not going to be able to address any questions on the topic and may miss very important points in the scripture.
Hope this post doesn’t seem uncivil, just posting my experiences/observations.
SZ
Yep, and members are "encouraged" to see it as "voluntary", right? And a "full tithe" isn't required to acquire a temple recommend (See post 59) to enter the temple and take part in the rituals that are necessary for one to reach "exaltation". Got it!
Mmmm one has to ask, would "tithing settlement", "temple recommend", "exhaltation"....be considered "milk" or "meat"? Which of these would be presented by missionaries in the first few discussions?
How about "Your family members will NOT be allowed to be present at your temple wedding unless they can acquire a temple recommend."
"Milk"..or "meat"? Since this is not something taught to new investigators, would that be because it would interfere with the marketing of the product?
“sales pitch” does not automatically imply/infer that the “seller” is making money.
They’re selling something, either a product, service or in this case a belief.
I don’t see the problem with the quote in this context.
SZ
Log-in-Eye: “Sales pitch” suggests a pecuniary motive and perhaps a willingness to deceive. _______________________________________
The-Perceptive-Nana: Yes, quite...
LogHead: I am not sure of your meaning. Are you saying that Mormon missionaries preach the Gospel for money, and may be willing to deceive others to make money?
The-Ever-Patient-Nana: No, I did no mean that...
Although they do...to ultimately make money for the Morg...
I was agreeing with the sales pitch comment...
The mishies are salesmen for the morg...
They do learn a sales pich at MTC...
“our product is superior to any others..”
My “admiration” of no paid clergy has since turned to skepticism because the burden of truth and teaching has been placed squarely on the shoulders of the congregant “teaching/talking” about the topic. Someone who hasn’t been “schooled” in the scripture is not going to be able to address any questions on the topic and may miss very important points in the scripture.
This brings to mind yet ANOTHER one of those bits of "meat"...
In Christian churches, if the pastor is a poor speaker, or is found to be uninformed, one has the option of moving their membership to a different congregation in the same denomination, no problem.
How many investigators are aware that mormons are forced to attend a congregation ASSIGNED TO THEM by the church, and are not allowed to just move to a different ward?
I just read a post by a couple that had moved just a short block away from their previous home and were not allowed to stay in their old congregation in which they and their children had deep roots, including their parents. They were told they had to change congregations because their new home was not in the "ward boundaries" of the old one.
Maybe, SZonian, this is a direct result of the situation you just described. Members can't be allowed to move because the speakers are not effective! Actually, I can remember one Stake President who was a gifted speaker and how I looked forward to hearing him in place of the regular droning "talks" on the infrequent occasions he would visit our ward.
The ward boundary thing hits home for my wife. When I retired from the AF we moved about 12 miles west and out of the ward boundaries that her dear friends lived in.
She was placed in the local ward. She cried for weeks about the members and the bishopric. She was basically made to feel unwelcome.
She has since started visiting her friends at her old ward once a month.
I believe it is basically cruel to “force” (I use that word a bit loosely) someone to leave behind their family, friends, connections, etc. just because they move across the street or across town.
What business is it of the church if that family wants to drive 50 miles to church or walk across the street?
SZ
No boasting here. In fact, some people are paid to work full-time for the LDS Church, albeit relatively few. I do not criticize them for it, nor do I criticize the clergy of other churches for accepting payment for their work.
However, you seem to have missed my point. (No doubt I was unclear.) You accuse the Latter-day Saints of merely marketing a product when they preach the gospel as they understand it. Yet you do not accuse other Christians of marketing a product when they preach the gospel as they understand it—and are, moreover, paid to do so.
It appears that you are engaging in special pleading, a logical fallacy. The issue is not whether you agree with one group's message and disagree with the other. (I will take it as given that you disagree with what the LDS missionaries teach.) But do you judge the actions of both groups by the same standards?
. . . who are untrained . . .
Although it is true that we do not require a university degree to minister in the Church, it is not quite accurate to say we are untrained. Latter-day Saints receive plenty of "on-the-job training," which seems to work reasonably well for us. (In addition, missionaries receive some intensive training in the MTC.)
. . . and in most cases have to have full-time jobs to support their families IMO short-change members. . . Paid clergymen and women, in most cases have spent years training for the occupation. Caring for and serving their parishoners IS a full-time job to them, not something that has to be done as a side job.
No doubt paid clergy do fine work. (My wife's cousin is a Catholic priest; I would never denigrate his good work.) And no doubt a professional clergy offers certain advantages over a lay clergy. But I believe the converse is true as well.
It would make for an interesting sociological study to compare the effectiveness of a professional clergy versus a lay clergy. Unfortunately, I am not qualified to carry out such a study.
I can say, from personal experience, that having a lay clergy often works surprisingly well for us. Perhaps on balance a professional clergy would do better, perhaps not.
Thanks SZ,
I attended LDS services last weekend with my mother. There were three speakers scheduled, and two musical numbers, as well as the standard hymns and sacrament (communion) service. The meeting lasted 1 1/2 hours which was interminably long.
The first speaker was a middle aged woman and wife of third speaker. She is a descendant of Lucy Mack Smith (mother of Joseph Smith Jr), through Hyrum Smith. For fifteen minutes, I listened to her monotonous rendition of the glories of Lucy Mack and how blessed the speaker was to have such a glorious heritage.
Next speaker was a BIL to first speaker and brother to third. He talked about how instrumental he had been in setting up a “branch” of the LDS Church and talked about how one family (excluding the father) had eventually joined the LDS Church mostly due to his proselyting and influence. At the end of his “talk” he pounded the pulpit saying, “It’s (Mormonism) either true or it’s a lie.”...I silently voted for “it’s a lie.”
The third speaker talked on and on about his physical ability - about how he had swam the length of the lake trying to prove his worth by performing the same feat as his great-grandfather. He spoke about participating in triathalons and how much dedication it takes. He likened his accomplishments in sports to his similar dedication to the LDS gospel.
The musical numbers were suprisingly good. LDS members take great pride in their talents.
All in all it was a long, boring meeting that left me bereft of any message of Christ. There was nothing Biblical mentioned. No particular knowledge was imparted, except about the speakers. I was once again reminded of how “good” and how “accomplished” and how “righteous” Mormons often think themselves to be. And I was also reminded of the sin of Pride and how easy it is to lose focus on the glory of God and the love of Jesus Christ and place our focus on ourselves - this reminder was due in part to the sermon I had heard the previous week in my non-denominational Church delivered by my pastor has a doctorate in counseling, greek, Biblical exegesis etc. etc. etc. He is well educated and available whenever I need him to remind me of my human nature and my nature imparted to me by Christ.
Since I personally consider the product sold by the LDS missionaries to be heresy, I cannot judge Christian missionaries by the same standards. I personally found the mormon basis for mission work, to "grow the church" while since leaving the mormon church and becoming a Christian, I have found the emphasis in Christian missionary work to be "grow the Faith in Jesus Christ"
When the "actions" are the same, they can be judged by the same standards.
I can say, from personal experience, that having a lay clergy often works surprisingly well for us. Perhaps on balance a professional clergy would do better, perhaps not.
I have experienced both.
The services rendered by paid clergy to parishoners are many, while the services of LDS missionaries, while you believe them to be of value to those contacted, serve in the long run, only to increase membership, and thus service only the "church" entity. Don't forget, you were the one to make this comparison originally, Post #145, "But if you insist that the LDS missionaries are trying to sell something, what do you say of clergy who make a career of the ministry?"
There is simply no comparison
Good post, CC...I’m curious...what were the hymns sung in that service?
Ok, lets take a look at this. As a former missionary are you going to deny that when you visited homes you never characterized Christians and the Christian Church as apostate, wrong, abominable, those who give only lip service, deniers of God, Bible corrupters and followers of men? Incase your memory fails you, check your notes - Joseph Smith-History 1:19; third missionary discussion. Is such misrepresentation of Christianity civil or truthful?
You are out there to 'sell' the mormon church. Your immediate and motivational desire is to do this to obtain godhood status (increasing membership is secondary). Ascribing ulterior motives to other persons, contrary to evidence, is at best uncivil.
Where else does the phrase "lying for the lord" get snagged too? The mormon church Logo. Did you tell your contacts about the book of abraham and claim it was a truthful translation of the papyrus? How about smith's polygamy and forcing women into polyandry? Did you discuss these items? If not, why not?
"Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour' (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when he was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest." - Gospel Principles, chapter 31, "Honesty"
Who knows how the recent edition of GP has altered this section, however, how much did you intentionally leave out of your presentations Logo? Did you present the truth about how smith 'translated' the bom (using the peep stone in the hat), or did you show them the pious picture of smith with some kind of spectacles and the 'plates' on a table? These are questions only you can answer logo. If you watered down or misrepresented the facts in the effort to get the contact to become a mormon, the act of which shows an ulterior motive and is uncivil - by your definition.
“Oh Ye Mountains High” was the closing hymn.
It was the weekend of July 24th - the holiday in Utah that commemorates the entrance of Mormon pioneers into the Salt Lake Valley. I was attending a Utah meeting that was held in the Southern Utah Mountains at over 8500 feet above see level. I don’t remember the other two hyms.
Here’s the words:
O Ye Mountains High, 34 - Charles W. Penrose
1. O ye mountains high, where the clear blue sky Arches over the vales of the free,
Where the pure breezes blow and the clear streamlets flow, How I’ve longed to your bosom to flee!
O Zion! dear Zion! land of the free,
Now my own mountain home, unto thee I have come; All my fond hopes are centered in thee.
2. Tho the great and the wise all thy beauties despise, To the humble and pure thou art dear;
Tho the haughty may smile and the wicked revile, Yet we love thy glad tidings to hear.
O Zion! dear Zion! home of the free,
Tho thou wert forced to fly to thy chambers on high, Yet we’ll share joy and sorrow with thee.
3. In thy mountain retreat, God will strengthen thy feet; Without fear of thy foes thou shalt tread;
And their silver and gold, as the prophets have told, Shall be brought to adorn thy fair head.
O Zion! dear Zion! home of the free,
Soon thy towers shall shine with a splendor divine, And eternal thy glory shall be.
4. Here our voices we’ll raise, and we’ll sing to thy praise, Sacred home of the prophets of God.
Thy deliv’rance is nigh; thy oppressors shall die; And thy land shall be freedom’s abode.
O Zion! dear Zion! land of the free,
In thy temples we’ll bend; all thy rights we’ll defend; And our home shall be ever with thee.
Quite the contrary, I thought your post was excellent. You offered some important criticisms of the practices of the Latter-day Saints, without loaded or abusive language, and without ascribing ulterior motives to anyone.
You raise some valid points. Allow me to comment on some of them:
I found that most of the bishopric were quite lacking in their knowledge of the scriptures. Most had an extremely difficult time with public speaking and the information would be lost because you couldn’t understand what it was they were saying.
It varies. Some know Mormon doctrine well; some do not. Some are great communicators; some are lousy.
Members were “assigned” topics and were given ~ 15 minutes to present a talk on the topic. It was told to me that it was “so we may become more enlightened on the topic”.
Again, it varies. Some bishops assign topics; some suggest topics; some leave the choice up to the speaker. The length of time allotted varies as well.
But if we are the only ones who spend the time researching it, studying it and preparing a talk, who else benefits? Because by the time the speaker gets past their “nervous” introduction, it’s almost time to wrap it up for the next speaker. Very little knowledge is imparted unto the congregation.
I agree with you that too many members speak poorly. (On the other hand, some are excellent speakers.) As you say, sometimes only the speaker benefits directly from the talk. However, by spreading out the opportunities to speak and teach, we ensure that everyone at least gets the benefit that comes from preparation.
I’ve since begun listening to pastors and preachers and have noticed that they have extensive knowledge on the topic they are addressing. They have the background and education required for them to be able to present the information in such a way that lets the congregants understand/comprehend what is being taught. They know their members and can start presenting topics that are of relevance to the needs of their congregation. Not following a boilerplate schedule that tells them on week 1 of month 6 the topic is _______________.
Yes, as I indicated before, there are advantages to having a professional clergy. Theological consistency and an ability to communicate may be among those advantages.
That said, theological consistency is less important to Latter-day Saints than it may be for other Christians. This is an extremely important point, one that is relevant to the article that began this thread. The author of that article expresses frustration that Mormonism "is immune" to what he considers "fatal criticism" based on doctrine and beliefs.
There is a reason for that. Mormonism is not so much a system of doctrines as it is a way of life. In other words, to be a "Mormon" in good standing is more a question of conduct and attitude than theology.
Some have said that Mormonism is "atheological." I believe that is true.
Unfortunately, I cannot stay to explain to say more. I would be happy to discuss the atheological character of Mormonism this evening, if anyone is interested.
There is a reason for that. Mormonism is not so much a system of doctrines as it is a way of life. In other words, to be a "Mormon" in good standing is more a question of conduct and attitude than theology.
"...While certain doctrines are enunciated in the standard works and some doctrinal issues have been addressed in formal pronouncements by the First Presidency, there is nothing in Mormonism comparable to the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Augsberg Confession. Few of the truly distinctive doctrines of Mormonism are discussed in official sources. It is mainly by unofficial means -- Sunday School lessons, seminary, institute, and BYU religion classes, sacrament meeting talks and books by Church officials and others who ultimately speak only for themselves -- that the theology is passed from one generation to the next. Indeed it would seem that a significant part of Mormon theology exists primarily in the minds of the members... the absence of a formal creed means that each generation must produce a new set of gospel expositors to restate and reinterpret the doctrines of Mormonism...."
- Peter Crawley, writing in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1982
"Mormons focus on accessible, social aspects of their religion. Although the Mormon system of doctrine is genuinely attractive to many of its members, many have argued that the primary "glue" of Mormonism is the heritage, culture, and family ties, not the doctrine and theology.Related thread:In other words, the typical allegiance to the Mormon organization primarily stems from something other than doctrinal concerns. The average Mormon sitting in a pew does not care how or why their religion works, they only care that it works for them."
From the thread Atheoligical Tendency ~Open~
That's a very interesting post.
I venture to say though, that it is a perfect description of just why Christians balk at the claim that mormons can, as you do, describe Christians as "other Christians."
I challenge you to present a Christian faith, an honest Christ-based faith, that holds these precepts as you describe them:
1. Theological consistency is less important to Latter-day Saints than it may be for other Christians.
2. Mormonism is not so much a system of doctrines as it is a way of life
3. To be a "Mormon" in good standing is more a question of conduct and attitude than theology
Please say if you believe that Christ would accept your definition of Christian within this framework and why.
which retread are you - say hi to resty
there - all fixed
theology is the basis from which doctrine is held to a consistent Biblical standard. Though it does make sense though, as Mormons consider the Bible "accurate as written".
That aside, Smith called the LDS a restored church - the rest being apostate...why are you trying to dive into the same category as the rest of us theologically consistent Christians?....speaking of course in matters of Trinity, creeds, etc...
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.