Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thousands Leave the LDS
Now you might have missed this news, what with the attacks in Paris and the childishness in the universities, but breaking news: The Church of LDS believes homosexuality sinful. Gasp! Who knew such beliefs lurked deep in their ways? Oh wait, everyone. Still, last week, that didn’t stop a few thousand from making a scene over a recent policy: the church will not baptize children of same-sex couples until they turn 18 and denounce same-sex marriage. So of course my social network feed exploded in outrage, of which I’d estimate 10 percent came from actual Mormons.
The latest news is that recently a few thousand made a public stand to quit the church, with at least 1,500 showing up in person, and another 2,000 (approximately) sending in legal representation to affect the same. (Side note: my lovely wife Amanda is unimpressed by sending your lawyer to submit your resignation. As she knows, you just need write a letter saying that you’re out.)
In my skepticism, I’d wager that few if any of those making this stand are seriously active in the church at all. I have a good friend who is very active in the “Ordain Women” movement and publicly denounced this decision by the church, but she remains equally active in her church. This likely was just a convenient excuse for those leaving to do so while making oneself look important.
The church responded, expressing that these individuals should reconsider this decision as there would be eternal consequences. This was met by mockery from the social progressives. “When threatening people with eternal damnation doesn’t work anymore, you know you’ve lost them.” Again, this doesn’t impress my lovely wife any, as she received similar warnings when she wrote that she was leaving the church. Naturally, leaving the LDS because one has converted to mainstream evangelical Christianity is less exciting (no colorful rainbow flags or news coverage), but the message was essentially the same: “Reconsider!”
I’ve never been Mormon, and I disagree quite a bit with the Church of Latter Day Saints, but here I turn and stand in their defense for a moment. Rather than trying to divide, the church is actually trying to consider all involved while remaining true to their doctrine. “Family is Forever” is a major concept within the church, so pitting children at the age of eight against their same-sex parents creates problems in many ways.
This policy is similar to that when dealing with children of Muslims: don’t cause familial strife. Wait until the child is of majority age and allow them to make the decision then. As for the “threats of eternal damnation” – well those are hardly such. Those religions that believe in the hereafter also tend to believe that one’s actions now will have consequences in one’s afterlife. The reply is a compassionate warning: don’t just consider the present, consider eternity. Understanding that there are rather nasty consequences for apostasy according to their beliefs, it’d be far crueler to say, “Okay, bye guys. Enjoy the Outer Darkness!”
That doesn’t matter to the social progressive. When you’re on the right side of history, you don’t have to argue or even listen to others. You just get to demand everyone embrace your ideals right now. Like the Huffington Post, you know that things are far more complex and that it takes smart, enlightened Social Progressives to figure things out. We religious types just need to take a back seat and let them drive.
Of interesting note is the second bullet point: How is the lay leader of a local Mormon congregation to make this determination when courts and lawyers find [shared custody] challenging?
For decades social progressives have told us that they have a better way, but they have taken a simple concept like marriage and made it so complex that it now supposedly requires lawyers, judges, and associated experts to puzzle out just what is a family and who is a parent. This is the aftermath of no-fault divorce, cohabitation, and shared custody. We can only expect more headaches and issues with same-sex marriage. And we have a bevy of legal experts and politicians in the wings ready to sweep in and confuse the issue even more, and then tell us that we’re too inexpert to understand the real complexities of what makes a family.
In our debates over same-sex marriage, I have stated that if a word can mean anything it will soon mean nothing. We’re finding that marriage and family as a cultural and social institution are quickly approaching nothing, and it’s the legal carrion crows that are picking over the remains. Only in the religious sense will those words maintain a sense of meaning. That is why the social progressives attack the attempts of religious leaders to negotiate and deliberate this morass.
Published in Marriage, Religion & Philosophy
I would take a caution with this. If I remember correctly, 10 of the remaining 11 ran away. However after the Resurrection, Jesus called them back.
After that James was beheaded, Peter crucified upside down, and so on and so forth.
You and I don’t know when or how the Lord will speak to one of these people, and a conversion happens that brings them back and causes them to (once again?) contribute openly to the congregation or church body. The added benefit of that return is what it does in the hearts of the people who witness it. They too are strengthened.
So, should someone find it in him- or her- self to return and submit to the discipline of whatever Church body, good.
If one wants to pursue this particular idea, then one might aver that there is an historical church comprised of the Catholics and the Orthodox, and then Protestantism. Protestantism is split. The early churches, think Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican, were creedal churches, that meaning that they used creedal statements such as the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and other creeds developed in the lives of those bodies.
There are a lot of non-creedal churches, one might suggest the Baptists, which generated no creedal statements and denied those extant. They would not be bound by creedal statements, avowing that the Bible was their creedal statement and that they needed no other.
The newest run of Protestant churches have no historical attachment to the Reformation, and certainly make no claims on historically Reformation churches or creeds, albeit that some of them have a (innocuous) creedal statement often about how open and loving they are. (Sounds like the new ad from the United Methodists.)
Given that the LDS has the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, it would seem that the Mormons are a creedal church, even if the creed is not the Nicene version which contradicts LDS doctrinal positions.
Donald, the article I read wasn’t by a Mormon, and I’m not even sure creedal was the word he used. Mormons do have additional scriptures unique to us, but we actually don’t have a particular creed that we cite, as in a concise statement of belief that encapsulates our view of God. The closest thing would be our Articles of Faith, but those are not really intended as a true creed, just an explanation of belief.
It does sound a bit self-aggrandizing to say we are Biblical as opposed to creedal. I don’t think it was meant that way by the man who said it, it was just a way of making a distinction. The point really is that Mormons firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and our Lord and Savior. To say that people who believe this are not Christian is very odd IMHO. Personally, I’ve never cared too much about the fight. I figure God knows the heart and is the judge. But still, I would like to be known as a Christian–a person who puts my faith and trust in Jesus Christ and God the Father.
I am not well versed in Mormon theology so I cannot comment on the dogma. For some, and this includes all religious denominations, they see their church as a social club. Some see their church membership as a cultural club.
As a Catholic my comment would be that heresy builds upon heresy. Before anyone gets too exercised I’m not referring to non-Catholics as heretics. Heretic does not apply to non-Catholics.
The heretic does not see the paradox in their complaint. The complaint they have is that the church imposes its’ will and they resent that imposition as they try to impose their will on the church.
Let the church shopping begin. Belonging to a church where one can’t be sure if the person sitting next to them, or their minister really holds the same belief as they do leads to one split after another and either the minister has to go or the congregants start to go.
Exactly, Doug. That’s part of the reason Mormons have taken this stand. A comment in First Things called it Mormons’ benedict option. I think that is a good way to characterize it.
Mormons who want that can go to the Community of Christ. They recently decided that “there is neither man nor woman” in Christ means homosexuality is a-ok and fornication is okay if you do it long enough.
I think most folks here are respectful when discussing other member’s religion. I find religion a fascinating topic and enjoy reading posts about religions other than my own. I will occasionally comment on posts about other religions but I always try to be respectful and welcome members to comment on posts about my religion (LDS) if they are similarly respectful.
Might I suggest that a creed is just an explanation of belief?
Oh my!
Yes. The Articles of Faith don’t feel like a creed though.
Good plan, Amy!
Hmm, I never knew that Playboy and Cosmopolitan had established denominations. Playboyarians and Cosmopolitarians. Add them to the list.
I think that a second issue is involved, which is “how” one sees the Father and the Son. Historic Christianity has long understood that the Triune God is outside of His creation and is responsible for that creation. Certainly early Protestantism retained that particular belief. This is true until the Second Person of God leaves eternity to become a Man.
Mormonism sees a deified man, a created being raised to divinity, who in turn deifies other men. All of this takes place after the creation, ergo the God of Mormonism is not involved in creation, but is seen as assisting in the populating of the cosmos.
Jesus notes that the people of the resurrection are not married nor are they given in marriage, which is opposite the LDS position on marriage.
So we have a set of difficulties in that while we often use the same words, they have different meanings.
Our moralities are largely the same, but our theology is not.
But religions, and/or religious interpretation, do change over time. IMO to more closely align themselves with what is currently considered moral in society. Not just the LDS have changed its approach to race issues, as integration has happened in this country. We are in the midst of seeing it happen with treatment of gays and gay marriage. The Catholic church seems to be adapting to a society that has a lot of divorced people in its midst, and the proper treatment of them. Religions have changed (or at least changed what they emphasize) what roles women should take in society.
On a personal note. I’m a non believer, I consider myself a secular Jew. But find that religion and religious views are interesting, what interests me most though is how the state treats religions and religious views.
Oh, I agree that our theologies are not the same, though I don’t think the creation part is exactly what you describe for us. Anyway, I’m a simple person who pays attention mainly to essentials. Christ died for all our sins, we find salvation in him and the scriptures are our behavioral guidebook. God is just and will work out the other details after we die. I like the idea of being with my family for eternity, though. I like it a lot.
Sure, there is always a social context to belief. The priesthood thing was always a policy, never a revelation, BTW. It was very unfortunate, but that is kind of how history works. Policies get set in place, people don’t know why, but then the march of history raises questions. Such a path and trajectory is hardly surprising. There is no basis for racism in the Bible, quite the contrary. That, however, is very different than redefining marriage. The importance of marriage, family and male/female relations are clearly laid out in Genesis and assumed throughout the Bible. There are practices in the Bible that change as time moves along, just as happened with Mormons and the priesthood, but the sexual code is different. It is consistent throughout the Bible, and for good reason. The sexual code assures that children will be brought into the world and as often as possible will have parents to raise them. As the essential element to human life on earth, it isn’t subject to negotiation.
That’s a good question. There are apparently statements by church leaders (including Brigham Young) about the matter, but you’d have to do a lot more research than I’ve ever done on it to know how accurate those quotations are, or whether they were ever meant as statements of church doctrine.
A religion professor at BYU explained to me back in the day that the practice of ordaining black men to the priesthood was stopped back in the 1830’s to placate pro-slavery/anti-mormon mobs in Missouri. However, I haven’t been able to corroborate that in any way, and given how unsuccessful any effort to placate those mobs was I doubt that the policy would have continued just on that basis.
The church has an official statement on its website, and there are some articles on Wikipedia that aren’t completely terrible.
I have heard Jesus described as our older brother, the first born Son. Scriptures notes that Jesus told John to behold his mother, and that Mary was told to behold her son. For a lot of us, this is the family we’re being born into. His mother is our mother. His Father is our Father. Jesus, Who is divine by nature, assumed our human nature to redeem us.
There is a qualitative difference between Someone Who by His nature is divine and Who then assumes humanity, and someone who by his nature is human and then is given or awarded divinity. It is the difference between Someone Who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, and someone who is changeable. Jesus did not lose His divinity when He became a human being, nor did He gain it.
That struck me as odd. Usually when someone decides to leave a church they just stop going. The formality of a letter makes me wonder if their are legal ties that are bound up with LDS membership. I’m having flashbacks to high school and trying to end my membership with Columbia House Records.
I know little to nothing about the LDS so if someone could let me know why you must resign I’d appreciate it.
Yes–I agree with your interpretation, and think most Mormons would too. Frankly, Mormons aren’t don’t talk much about this sort of thing–we see Jesus as the son of God, which means divine from the get-go. And we are part of God’s family, but we just don’t think earthly family ties are erased when we die. About the doctrine of eternal progression and the form of salvation–well, that too will become clear to us when we die. I’m willing to wait for that.
Nah, you don’t have to resign. They are just being dramatic. If you don’t resign, however, the church does keep tabs on you and sends visitors to your house once in awhile. In this instance, though, they are just trying to make a statement.
I was rather struck by this. First, and not trying to be flip, but I don’t know how a creed “feels.” That might be a limitation of mine and if so I’ll own it. But when I recite the Nicene Creed at Mass or the Apostles Creed when starting a rosary, it does not involve an emotion. Rather it seems more like the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, a statement of fact, like two plus two equals four. That is about the amount of emotion that is invoked in me.
Second, might I point you to the Anglican’s 39 Articles? Theological differences not withstanding, I think you might recognize a pattern which your own Articles of Faith might mirror.
There are other articles, and other confessions that might also be looked at as religious bodies attempt to explain themselves by explaining what they believe.
Noting the absence of the “non-creedal” churches, the statements of faith generated by religions is quite common. And about those churches which don’t claim a creed? Their creed is to claim that they don’t have a creed. Pretty funny!
I was formerly a member of a Local Church. You want to talk about non-creedal? Everything is handled based on a biblical principle. They refuse to call themselves something other than the Church in Chicago or Church in Seattle, etc. They have no offices besides deacons, elders, and people ministering full time. They reject all ceremony or elements of the Christian calendar.
It was not my style of church, but there were some wonderful people there, and I learned some useful techniques for prayer / bible study.
I know, it is funny. For Mormons, it is the faithful story that is most important and central, not only the Biblical story, but our own story of faith and struggle, particularly of our ancestors, and the stories from our extra scriptures too. We don’t worship ancestors, but we greatly admire their faith, what they sacrificed and the persecutions they endured, martyr-style. It’s kind of a matter of emphasis, I suppose, but really all leading to a similar place.
Since Mormons have a hierarchy, we have some unity church-wide in spite of our relative lack of creed. In that way we are similar to Catholics, and as it turns out, we two are among the strongest fighting the “sexual revolution” in the religious community. I’m more than happy to join Catholics in the fight! I think Mormons demand more adherence to it among members than Catholics, however, not officially, but in practice. In part that is because we are so much smaller. I think having geographical congregations helps too. We watch one another and keep tabs on adherence to the rules. Very few people are excommunicated, but some members get a talking-to once in awhile! And there is a lesser action–being disfellowshipped.
You are right in the sense that we are all children of the Father and he wants to bind his entire family together for eternity. The critical familial relationship among us mortals is the marriage between husband and wife as Paul and Moses have noted in the Bible. The Church’s marriage to Christ does not supersede that relationship and is just as important in the next life as it is in this life. That is why we are sealed for time and all eternity in this life, in reference to your quote from Jesus about not being married in the resurrection.
As far as the nature of God goes, we are either literal(same race) offspring or we are created-from-scratch beings, there really are no other options, at least in a religious sense. The former means we can “grow up” to be like Him, as mentioned several places in the Bible; the latter has some real philosophical problems about why He did such an imperfect job of making us.
Thanks Merina Smith.
I think the response to this is that Mormonism is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism. Most Jews don’t deny that Christians worship YHWH, but the additions and changes contained in the New Testament are so great as to constitute a complete break with Jewish tradition. Many Christians (I’m on the fence about this, myself) feel that the Book of Mormon is comparable to the New Testament in this regard.
My guess would be that if they just stopped going nobody would notice, and that’s what this is ultimately all about. They don’t want to just leave the church, they want everybody to know they’ve left the church.
Either the historic Christianity is the fulfillment of the promises given to Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and all of the Jews, or it is not.
You might poll active Jews and inactive Jews and ask them if they believe Christians worship the Jewish God. That would be a fascinating question to have answered.
I don’t believe that the additional books of Mormonism is what makes the difference. It is the belief system which sets Mormonism apart from say Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and other Christian denominations. There are commonalities which Mormonism is outside of. That is not meant to be a pejorative, just a recognition of fact.
It is now rather commonly recognized that if a Lutheran or a Presbyterian becomes Catholic, the baptism that the Lutheran or Presbyterian Church administered is recognized by the Catholic Church, and vice-versa. This is not true for Mormonism. Were you to become a Mormon, you’d be re-baptized. If you left Mormonism to become a Catholic, you’d be re-baptized.