NY Times Article About Mitt Romney

[christianley]

There’s an article in yesterday’s NY Times about Mitt Romney and the factor that his Mormon religion is likely to play in his upcoming bid for the U.S. Presidency.

nytimes.com/2007/02/08/us/politics/08romney.html?hp&ex=1170997200&en=392fd9e5e4d7de08&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Among the interesting paragraphs, this:

"“Mr. Romney, in an extended interview on the subject as he drove through South Carolina last week, expressed confidence that he could quell concerns about his faith, pointing to his own experience winning in Massachusetts. He said he shared with many Americans the bafflement over obsolete Mormon practices like polygamy — he described it as “bizarre” — and disputed the argument that his faith would require him to be loyal to his church before his country.”"

"“Still, Mr. Romney is taking no chances. He has set up a meeting this month in Florida with 100 ministers and religious broadcasters. That gathering follows what was by all accounts a successful meeting at his home last fall with evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Jerry Falwell; the Rev. Franklin Graham, who is a son of the Rev. Billy Graham; and Paula White, a popular preacher.”"

"“Mr. Romney’s candidacy has stirred discussion about faith and the White House unlike any since Kennedy, including a remarkable debate that unfolded recently in The New Republic. Damon Linker, a critic of the influence of Christian conservatism on politics, described Mormonism as a “theologically unstable, and thus politically perilous, religion.””"

I’m for Newt Gingrich. Romney has made it clear he is not to be trusted with his flip-flops on abortion and gay marriage. He continues to be in denial about his religion’s history – I am sure he is well-educated enough to have a good idea about it. By the way his mother ran for the Senate in Michigan and was extremely pro-choice, and the Mormon Church’s position on abortion is more pro-choice than it is pro-life. The Mormon Church even allows its members to have abortions when the health of the mother is in danger which means that for almost any excuse a woman can justify an abortion. And the Mormon Church has cowardly refused to take a stand on embryonic stem cell research – both of Utah’s Senators support it.

All you need to know about Romney’s religion can be found in these two videos about the Book of Mormon:

lhvm.org/vid_dna_med.htm

lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm

These videos can be watched on-line and are excellent presentations.

There is also a very good article on the Catholic Answers web site:

catholic.com/library/Prob…_of_Mormon.asp

Mr. Romney really has a lot of 'xplainin to do.

 

[zerinus]

All you need to know about Romney’s religion can be found in these two videos about the Book of Mormon: . . .

“Romney’s religion” is true, the videos prove nothing. Worthless anti-Mormon propaganda.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

“Romney’s religion” is true, the videos prove nothing. Worthless anti-Mormon propaganda.

zerinus

Wow. I can’t wait to get home and watch the videos. Little Zerinus is having a cow over them. His precious bosom must just be burning like fire.

BTW, for the record, I wouldn’t have any problem voting for Romney, as long as I don’t get the feeling he’s lying about his religion. What he said in that Times article about being confused over Mormonism’s polygamist era (which is still going on for many Mormons) (and is still enthusiastically supported by Zerinus), calling it “bizarre,” then I probably would have to vote elsewhere. I can’t stand a prevaricator.

I would be very surprised if Romney isn’t a TBM with very large plans for a Heavenly Harem.

 

[MGEISING]

By the way, you should be aware that Mormons only associate with “gentiles” in order to convert them. Once they are certain that you will not convert, they will cease wasting their time on you and will move on to another potential convert.

This missionary technique is known as “friendshipping”. They even have a manual that teaches them how to do it effectively. Only in Mormonism is “friendship” a verb that you do to someone.

I know. I used to be one. Don’t get sucked in. It’s hard to get out.
Paul

Hi Paul:

We have friends who are Mormon’s - known them for years … and they never ever try and convert us … of course they ask us lots of questions about Catholism … but they never try to dispute it … Are you sure this is a MO for all Mormons?

Thanks,

Mgeising

 

[MGEISING]

That is correct. LDS believe that Jesus is God. Here are some references for you to look at:

Book of Mormon, Title Page:

. . . And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations . . .

2 Nephi 11:

7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

2 Nephi 26:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, . . .

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

3 Nephi 11:

13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

Ether 3:

18 And he (i.e. Jesus) ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him.

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

That is not correct. A Polytheist is someone who worships more than one God. Hinduism may be considered a popytheist religion, because they believe in many Gods whom they think can influence their destiny for good or ill, many of which (if not all) they actually worship. They offer them oblations in their temples and such like. (In fact, Catholicism comes a lot colser to that than Mormonism does, because of their practice of saint worship and Mary worship, which we do not have.) LDS worship only one God, the Father, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.

If you mean the absurdity of Trinitarianism—the three in one and one in three absurdity—I suppose you would be right. We don’t believe in that kind of crazy nonsense—and I might add, neither does the Bible. That is a doctrine of the post-apostate Christendom. It is not biblical.

Yes, that would be about right. That is not what we believe.

zerinus

**Not very Christian like Zerinus … and also you are quite wrong on some of your beliefs of the Catholic Faith.

Let’s keep it Christian … OK.

You don’t have to lower yourself because other’s did.

Mgeising**

 

[flameburns623]

Zerinus:

Now you come to the crux of the matter! You are admitting that the doctrine of the Godhead of Christendom has changed. What it believes now is not the same as what it believed in the earliest days of Christianity. I agree! But the question is, why did it need to be changed? Weren’t the earliest Christians Christian enough? Hadn’t they lived closest to the times of Jesus and His Apostles? Hadn’t they received the correct doctrine from them? It didn’t need to be changed! The original doctrine was the correct one

Zerinus: Much of your post was fairly well reasoned but you fall apart at this point. Even on FAIR-LDS they acknowledge that at times, the language used to characterise a doctrine creates misapprehensions which require that one use different or more-nuanced language to characterise that doctrine. This does not imply that the doctrine has been changed, only that for whatever reason, the language needed changing.

An example from the physical world: if I am unable to remove a screw from a machine using a Phillip’s-head screwdriver, I can often use a flat-tipped screwdriver (or an ‘Easy-Out’ or similar brand of screw extractor). Since I, personally, an am awkward mechanic, I often “strip-out” or mar a screw head and must find a substitute way of removing the screw. This doesn’t imply that the screw was somehow ‘wrong’, only that I
need to use a different tool.

By the same token, the doctrines of the Godhead which Clement was attempting to expound upon, but Christians found that his tool of exposition–the language he chose to use to enlarge upon the doctrine of deity–distorted or marred the doctrine. It violated the sensus fidelium, the instinct of the faithful-at-large: that what Clement and students of his theology were saying with their analogous language about “God” versus “gods” was not quite what the Apostles had taught about the Oneness of God; nor about God the Father and His relationship to Jesus Christ. Therefore different language was chosen which more accurately represented what Christians always and everywhere had believed about Deity.

It goes without saying that I do NOT believe that LDS doctrine in any way represents the beliefs which all Christians always and everywhere had believed. Obviously you will want to argue otherwise.

By the way, this discussion deserves it’s own thread: the current thread, I think, is about Mitt Romney’s candidacy . . .

 

[flameburns623]

Zerinus:

Contarini:

Frankly, I don’t care if you talk about a hierarchy of “gods” as long as you are clear that the One God is of a completely different nature than the “gods” and that only He is to receive latria

–i.e., worship in the strict and proper sense.

This is a two part statement. I agree 100% with the second part, but not necessarily with the first part. We don’t know enough about the “nature” of God (or man) to be able to say for sure if they are of the same “natures” or not. But I agree absolutely that the one true God is the only one who is worthy to receive our “worship in the strict and proper sense,” to use your own words.

But if you make that division, then I have to ask on what side of the division Jesus stands. Is He one of the lesser “gods” or is he God in the same sense the Father is God?

He is a distinct and separate being from the Father, and is subordinate to the Father. But He is God as the Father is, and deserving of our worship.

So let me posit a new logical dilemma for you:

Either God the Father is essentially the same sort of being as the lesser “gods,” only superior to them in the hierarchy (which is polytheism);

I don’t see why that is polytheism. You have to define polytheism for me in that case.

Or Jesus is the greatest of the lesser gods, but still a completely different kind of being from God the Father (which means that you were misleading me when you implied earlier that Jesus was God in the strict and proper sense);

No, Jesus is not “a completely different kind of being from God the Father”—and neither are we “completely different kinds of beings” from Jesus.

Or Jesus is God in the same sense as the Father and thus qualitatively different from the “gods” Clement was talking about (which is orthodox Christianity, or at least is getting close to it).

Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is, but not necessarily “qualitatively different” from the gods that Clement was talking about. You have to define your terms here. I don’t know what you mean by “qualitatively different”.

Zerinus: this is where LDS teaching really parts company with the doctrine of Deity revealed by God to the prophets and Apostles and believed always and everywhere by all true Christians. For the Christian faith, God is substantively different from all other beings that have existed, now exist, or ever will exist. God is unique in Who He Is and He possesses attributes that no other Creature has or can ever have. The 'theosis" taught by the Eastern Orthodox and by some Early Christian Faithers does not imply that humans–or any other beings–can ever become ‘deified’ in the sense that we can acquire the ‘incomunicable’ attributes of God, only that God has some attributes in which human nature can share and which redeemed humans one day will share.

To suggest otherwise, as LDS theology does–to suggest that human beings now or ever will acquire all of the attributes of God and become exactly like Him is a form of polytheism. (Incidentally, such a doctrine denies several of the established atributes of God: for example, the eternal nature of God, the immutablilty of God, etcetera). To quibble and say that only God the Father will ever be worshipped by human beings is to arrive at henotheism, a variant of polytheism which acknowledges multiple “gods” but allows for the worship of only one of them. Such “gods” are not God at all by the standards of Deity revealed to us by God Himself through the prophets and Apostles.

 

[flameburns623]

They are taught from infancy how to lie effectively, how to act normal around “gentiles” and how to comfortably embrace two or more conflicting “truths” as true at the same time. George Orwell called it “Doublethink”. Mormons are the reigning experts. You don’t want a believing Mormon in charge of the greatest military machine on earth. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Really,
Paul

Actually, I thought it was Roman Catholics who were trained in these things. Or was it Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or was I thinking of Freemasons. Or Muslims? No, perhaps it was Scientologists . . .

My point is that it is impossible to conduct a dialogue with someone while making rabid charges of this nature against their character. Moreover, when one seeks for evidence that such dissimulation is in fact a standard teaching of such groups, the evidence is often weak, misstated, or fabricated. Far better to do enough homework about a controversial group to get a really accurate picture of the official beliefs of that group.

And then, when dealing with individual representatives of that group–especially representatives eager to persuade you to accept them in some way–allow for the fact that their zeal may outstrip the depth of their knowledge about their own beliefs. They may make honest mistakes. They may overstate the evidence for their side of an issue. They may be misinformed. They may miscommunicate their position to you, even if what they say is technically accurate. You may bring biases to the discussion which interfere with your own ability to accurately apprehend what is being said. Or the issue at stake may be a thorny one even for true believers, with multiple possible interpretations of or beliefs about a given issue.

In respect to the last point: the fact that Mitt Romney is rather more liberal in some of his political views than many other Mormons does not imply that he is disingenuous or has a bad character–any more than the fact that I can name numerous Roman Catholic politicians whose political views seem out-of-step with what one would expect based upon official Catholic teaching. There is some wiggle room in Catholic theology for some issues: a Catholic candidate can be four-square in favor of the Iraq war, or in favor of the death penalty, etcetera, even though the RCC officially decries both. Mormon theology likewise has areas where some ‘wiggle room’ exists, even though a True-Believing Mormon (TBM) is likely to be more conservative than liberal on most issues.

Romney has been rather more liberal in the past on some issues than I am comfortable with–‘gay marriage’ and abortion have come up as I recollect. I think he has, while running for governor in a very liberal state, argued that the positions he has taken are not incompatible with his LDS faith. Now that he need to win the support of Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, he seems to be shifting his views a bit. I don’t think this implies that Mitt Romney is so mentally unhinged by ‘cognitive dissonance’ or ‘doublethink’ that he is unfit for the Presidency. I may not trust Romney’s ‘change of heart’; I may come to feel that he is merely pandering to me and will not stand firmly for the positions he now claims to hold. But that is not the same thing as implying that there is something “wrong” with Romney, because of his religious upbringing, which will render him unstable or unfit for the Presidency.

 

[christianley]

Actually, I thought it was Roman Catholics who were trained in these things. Or was it Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or was I thinking of Freemasons. Or Muslims? No, perhaps it was Scientologists . . .

My point is that it is impossible to conduct a dialogue with someone while making rabid charges of this nature against their character. Moreover, when one seeks for evidence that such dissimulation is in fact a standard teaching of such groups, the evidence is often weak, misstated, or fabricated. Far better to do enough homework about a controversial group to get a really accurate picture of the official beliefs of that group.

And then, when dealing with individual representatives of that group–especially representatives eager to persuade you to accept them in some way–allow for the fact that their zeal may outstrip the depth of their knowledge about their own beliefs. They may make honest mistakes. They may overstate the evidence for their side of an issue. They may be misinformed. They may miscommunicate their position to you, even if what they say is technically accurate. You may bring biases to the discussion which interfere with your own ability to accurately apprehend what is being said. Or the issue at stake may be a thorny one even for true believers, with multiple possible interpretations of or beliefs about a given issue.

In respect to the last point: the fact that Mitt Romney is rather more liberal in some of his political views than many other Mormons does not imply that he is disingenuous or has a bad character–any more than the fact that I can name numerous Roman Catholic politicians whose political views seem out-of-step with what one would expect based upon official Catholic teaching. There is some wiggle room in Catholic theology for some issues: a Catholic candidate can be four-square in favor of the Iraq war, or in favor of the death penalty, etcetera, even though the RCC officially decries both. Mormon theology likewise has areas where some ‘wiggle room’ exists, even though a True-Believing Mormon (TBM) is likely to be more conservative than liberal on most issues.

Romney has been rather more liberal in the past on some issues than I am comfortable with–‘gay marriage’ and abortion have come up as I recollect. I think he has, while running for governor in a very liberal state, argued that the positions he has taken are not incompatible with his LDS faith. Now that he need to win the support of Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, he seems to be shifting his views a bit. I don’t think this implies that Mitt Romney is so mentally unhinged by ‘cognitive dissonance’ or ‘doublethink’ that he is unfit for the Presidency. I may not trust Romney’s ‘change of heart’; I may come to feel that he is merely pandering to me and will not stand firmly for the positions he now claims to hold. But that is not the same thing as implying that there is something “wrong” with Romney, because of his religious upbringing, which will render him unstable or unfit for the Presidency.

In Massachusetts Romney needed to have the liberal views to get the Catholic vote …

I do agree with Paul Dupre’s insistence that Mormons are often found trying to hide what they truly believe. I don’t think real Catholics do this although some liberal Catholics might. At least the liberal Catholics will say they disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches. Mormons will simply deny the doctrines. We have often seen that here especially in regards to the Mormon belief in God the Father’s existing as a man prior to becoming a God.

 

[flameburns623]

I do agree with Paul Dupre’s insistence that Mormons are often found trying to hide what they truly believe. I don’t think real Catholics do this although some liberal Catholics might. At least the liberal Catholics will say they disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches. Mormons will simply deny the doctrines. We have often seen that here especially in regards to the Mormon belief in God the Father’s existing as a man prior to becoming a God.

I think something rather different is going on. Many Mormons want to be perceived as mainstream Christians (which is why they are so hurt at being called a non-Christian ‘cult’, for example). More than a few want to be mainstream Christians, IMHO, mainstream that is except for some of the unique characteristics of the modern LDS Church: living Prophets and Apostles; ‘Priesthood authority lineally bestowed by Christ’; an ‘open canon’; ‘eternal marriage’ and ‘eternal progression of the human race’; and the rather unique structure of LDS wards. I think they really would like to have all of those things and yet put aside the embarrassing aspects of LDS theology: so they liken their doctrines of Deity and deification to the idea of ‘theosis’; they try to re-define their Godhead in Trinitarian terms (or else shoot down the Trinity as an historical Christian doctrine); and they treat polygamy and other peculiar features of 19th-century Mormonism as mere glosses of history, things which are beyond the pale of contemporary LDS thinking.

I would like to believe that the LDS Church might make steps in the direction of orthodox theology in the future; but given that other sects which attempted this (the RLDS, the Armstrong Worldwide Church Of God) have basically imploded, I think it is unlikely. Instead, Mormonism will probably at some point just simply stop growing while it’s membership will slowly and quietly bleed away, generation after generation, like the Strangites and other LDS splinter groups.

 

[christianley]

I think something rather different is going on. Many Mormons want to be perceived as mainstream Christians (which is why they are so hurt at being called a non-Christian ‘cult’, for example). More than a few want to be mainstream Christians, IMHO, mainstream that is except for some of the unique characteristics of the modern LDS Church: living Prophets and Apostles; ‘Priesthood authority lineally bestowed by Christ’; an ‘open canon’; ‘eternal marriage’ and ‘eternal progression of the human race’; and the rather unique structure of LDS wards. I think they really would like to have all of those things and yet put aside the embarrassing aspects of LDS theology: so they liken their doctrines of Deity and deification to the idea of ‘theosis’; they try to re-define their Godhead in Trinitarian terms (or else shoot down the Trinity as an historical Christian doctrine); and they treat polygamy and other peculiar features of 19th-century Mormonism as mere glosses of history, things which are beyond the pale of contemporary LDS thinking.

I would like to believe that the LDS Church might make steps in the direction of orthodox theology in the future; but given that other sects which attempted this (the RLDS, the Armstrong Worldwide Church Of God) have basically imploded, I think it is unlikely. Instead, Mormonism will probably at some point just simply stop growing while it’s membership will slowly and quietly bleed away, generation after generation, like the Strangites and other LDS splinter groups.

I think the level of education is high enough in the LDS Church and the tribal aspect of Mormonism is so profound they might be able to do better than the RDLS and the Worldwide Church of God. I don’t think most of them would really like to go anywhere else and they would like to carry on a social Mormonism. They would do this even if their beliefs were made more orthodox – in fact, I think many of them are silently embarrassed about their beliefs. I think the LDS Church could survive a move to orthodoxy and come out pretty well if they kept their conservative moral teachings.

 

[Contarini]

Okay, my mistake. Perhaps I had assumed too much. I had assumed that you had read my discussions with Nan about the widespread belief among the Early Christians about the deification of man

I hadn’t. But I’m quite aware that deification was a basic doctrine of the Fathers, and still is of the Orthodox Church. It should be a basic doctrine of all Christians. But because for us God is utterly transcendent and not simply a being greater than we are, “deification” means something radically different for us than for you. At least that is what I have always believed, and from your posts I think I was right.

1. Clement was not the odd one out in his belief in deification. It was very widespread among the early Christians.

I know that. That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about his language of a hierarchy of gods. Deification in mature patristic thought (what you would call “post-apostate” ) meant sharing in the nature of the One True God by grace (and I would say that that is also what it means in Irenaeus, and in some sense also in Clement and Origen). Insofar as Clement speaks of a hierarchy of demigods and puts Jesus somewhere in between these demigods and the Father, he is heading in a direction quite different from that taken by orthodox Christianity. He is vague enough about it that I would not call him a heretic. But there were elements in his thought and Origen’s that the Arians picked up on later–just as orthodox Christians picked up on other elements.

1. I never said that those “gods” are worthy of our worship. On the contrary, that is precisely the point that I was trying to make. We only worship the one true God—the “God of gods” and “Lord of lords”.

So do you worship Jesus or not? Is He the one true God or not?

But they are “gods” nevertheless (real gods).

No, they are not real gods. How is “real” different from “true”? If God is the one true God, how are these other beings “real gods”?

“God” can be used in several different ways:

1. As the ultimate source of all existence
2. As a being worthy of worship and ultimate devotion
3. As any superhuman being
4. As any being who shares in a conscious and eminent manner in the nature of God in sense 1

Angels are gods in senses 3 and 4. Humans become gods in sense 4. Only God is God in senses 1 and 2. Sense 3 is a loose, imprecise sense. Sense 4 is derivative on sense 1.

So what do you mean by “gods”? You rest a lot on the word, but you haven’t explained what it means.

Now you com to the crux of the matter! You are admitting that the doctrine of the Godhead of Christendom has changed. What it believes now is not the same as what it believed in the earliest days of Christianity.

It has developed, because there were ambiguities. Clement was not representative of all early Christians. I was not talking about his belief in divinization, which was typical and was fully orthodox. I was talking about the idea that Jesus is a “god” of a significantly different kind from God the Father (although still far above the hierarchy of lesser “gods”). This was later condemned as Arianism. But it was not the only view held in the early Church. Others suggested that Father and Son were just two names for the same being. Others had other theories. Others, and these the wisest, did not try to speculate. But this was not a stable situation in the long term. As I said earlier, the Church taught several things which appeared mutually incompatible:

1. Jesus is divine
2. There is only one God
3. Jesus and the Father are distinct

The solution that Jesus is a lesser god was tempting, but it contradicted the NT evidence which attributes actions and powers to Jesus that are explicitly limited to the One True God. It also undercut the Christian polemic against pagan polytheism, which you do not seem to understand very well. The more philosophical pagans believed that there was one ultimate divinity, but they believed that there were many lesser gods who mediated between that ultimate, unknowable God and human beings. Christians rejected that view as polytheistic. That’s why I said that someone like Clement, who rejected pagan polytheism but was closer to it than most, would be more likely to use language about a hierarchy of gods. Arianism was, in the end, a pagan view of Jesus as a demigod. (Clement was not an Arian, but the Arians latched on to this language.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This is a two part statement. I agree 100% with the second part, but not necessarily with the first part. We don’t know enough about the “nature” of God (or man) to be able to say for sure if they are of the same “natures” or not.

On the contrary, we can say with confidence that human beings are created by God in His image and likeness. So we are radically different insofar as we are limited and created, while He is infinite and uncreated. But we participate in His being, not only in our existence as all creatures do, but in our capacity to reason and love which represents His image in us. By responding to His grace, we can enter into a personal union with Him in which our entire being is transformed and filled with the holiness of God. This is what deification means in orthodox Christianity.

But I agree absolutely that the one true God is the only one who is worthy to receive our “worship in the strict and proper sense,” to use your own words.

He is a distinct and separate being from the Father, and is subordinate to the Father. But He is God as the Father is, and deserving of our worship.

So Jesus is the One True God? In that case all your language about a “hierarchy of gods” is totally irrelevant. Jesus is not part of that hierarchy but is God in the same sense that the Father is God. And we are back to the dilemma I posted above–either there are two ultimate Gods or Jesus and the Father are one God even as they are distinct in person–which is the orthodox view you castigated as “absurd.”

I don’t see why that is polytheism. You have to define polytheism for me in that case.

I would define polytheism as any belief positing a plurality of gods in sense 1 or 2 as defined in my last post. In other words, if you believe that there are superhuman beings but that there is not one ultimate, radically transcendent being who created everything and everyone else and on whom everything else depends, so that not only is no other being a “god” in remotely the same sense but nothing else even exists in the same sense–then you are a polytheist. (Of course lots of people might not put it quite this way.) Or, alternatively, if you believe that there is one such Being but that He is unknowable and so our worship goes most directly to lesser beings, then you are also a polytheist, but of a very different sort. Or if you believe that the one divine reality manifests itself in many different personal forms, which can be thought of as separate gods and worshipped separately (and even imagined mythologically as being in conflict with each other), although they are all manifestations of one divine reality–that is polytheism too.

By some definitions Trinitarian Christianity is polytheism, and by others Catholicism/Orthodoxy are polytheistic (you appear to agree with this last point). I disagree with both these definitions, but they aren’t worth fighting.

 

[Contarini]

No, Jesus is not “a completely different kind of being from God the Father”—and neither are we “completely different kinds of beings” from Jesus. . . .
Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is, but not necessarily “qualitatively different” from the gods that Clement was talking about. You have to define your terms here. I don’t know what you mean my “qualitatively different”. . . . there is in fact no distinction between the “kind of being” that Jesus is and the “kind of being” that the rest of humanity are. They are both “of one” (i.e. the same kind of beings), and they are both “brethren”. Furthermore, if you analyze those verses carefully enough, you will find that it goes even further. They show that this “identity of beingness” extends even to the relationship between the Father and the rest of mankind—and there are other verses that could be brought to bear on that, starting with Genesis, where God made man “in His own image”.

Fair enough. In orthodox Christianity our creation in God’s image does not mean that we are like God but lesser. On the contrary, it highlights just how great the contrast between us and God is. God is infinite; we are finite. God is utterly One in essence (while existing in three Persons); we are composite creatures. Only a being so utterly far above us could create anything at all–let alone beings such as ourselves who are capable of participation in divinity. It’s one of those orthodox Christian paradoxes that Mormons abhor, and it is necessary if we are to avoid the first kind of polytheism I mentioned above.

Consider this: if God is the ultimate source of all being–if He infinitely transcends the entire universe–then there is in fact an infinite qualitative gap between Him and us. But if He is not that sort of being, then the old atheist question demands our attention: if God created the universe, who created God? If God is not the source of everything, then who or what is?

In other words, my understanding of Mormonism is that you are not only polytheists but in a sense atheists (like Buddhists or ancient Mesopotamian or Norse pagans, as opposed to Hindus or Neoplatonists who believe[d] in an ultimate divine reality). Your “God” isn’t God at all in our sense. He is just a powerful superhuman being. I may be wrong on this. Certainly the Book of Mormon sounds more orthodox than this–but I have been told that many of your more polytheistic ideas appeared in later writings such as the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants.

And thank you for your intelligent and honest discussion!

zerinus

Thank you as well. It’s hard to discuss these matters without becoming heated. Please don’t take offense at my use of the word “atheism”–I mean it in a quite specialized sense, that you do not seem to believe that any being exists who corresponds to what I and other orthodox Christians mean by “God.”

Edwin

 

[flameburns623]

I think the level of education is high enough in the LDS Church and the tribal aspect of Mormonism is so profound they might be able to do better than the RDLS and the Worldwide Church of God. I don’t think most of them would really like to go anywhere else and they would like to carry on a social Mormonism. They would do this even if their beliefs were made more orthodox – in fact, I think many of them are silently embarrassed about their beliefs. I think the LDS Church could survive a move to orthodoxy and come out pretty well if they kept their conservative moral teachings.

I’m way less confident of this than you. If the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etcetera, were acknowledged as ‘pious fiction’ or ‘inspired fiction’, after 180+ years of trying to argue that they are historical works, the rate of conversion almost certainly would slow or stop. Defections are already very high: something like two-thirds of converts leave the LDS Church within 5 years, and about 50% of all Mormons–by their own records–are inactive. Undermine Smith’s role as prophet even a little bit and those numbers are bound to climb. I just don’t see people maintaining commitments to a Church that makes very high demands upon it’s membership if one cannot sustain the myths of a supernatural origin upon which the LDS Church has built it’s growth for the past half-decade.

 

[Allweather]

I’m way less confident of this than you. If the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etcetera, were acknowledged as ‘pious fiction’ or ‘inspired fiction’, after 180+ years of trying to argue that they are historical works, the rate of conversion almost certainly would slow or stop. Defections are already very high: something like two-thirds of converts leave the LDS Church within 5 years, and about 50% of all Mormons–by their own records–are inactive. Undermine Smith’s role as prophet even a little bit and those numbers are bound to climb. I just don’t see people maintaining commitments to a Church that makes very high demands upon it’s membership if one cannot sustain the myths of a supernatural origin upon which the LDS Church has built it’s growth for the past half-decade.

I wonder if Mormonism could one day exist mainly outside the U.S. Gordon Hinckley has said that already, there are more Mormons outside the U.S. than within. There seems to be a big attraction for it among polynesians. Hawaii has quite a few, and even has a campus of BYU there.

Of course, the same sort of thing could be said of Catholicism. Most Catholics now live in South America. Europe is rapidly abandoning its Christian roots. In a sense, this could be the Great Apostasy foretold in Scripture, as the Europeans firmly reject Jesus in favor of secular humanism. Of course, there will always be a remnant, so that no apostasy could ever be universal. But the Church could shrink. Benedict is said to favor a smaller, more fervent Catholicism. I tend to agree with him.