That question has been getting more consideration recently, with the general consensus being, "No, at least not yet." By Common Consent is posting an academic piece by scholar Walter E. A. van Beek that helps understand the question. He uses the examples of Islam and Roman Catholicism to highlight diversity within the religion as a key indicator of world status.
The diversity mentioned in Islam and Catholicism allows for identification processes of the individual with that religion, that vary widely. People may define themselves as Catholic or Muslim on widely diverging grounds, ranging from full and total commitment (the literal meaning of "Islam") to identification of a very low intensity.
"Cultural inclusion" matters as well; together, "diversity and cultural inclusion are sufficient to generate a cultural religious identity." How does he think Mormonism (and the LDS Church in particular, the focus of his inquiry) measure up on diversity and cultural religious identity?
Though characterised as a "do-it-yourself" theology, the mainframe of Mormon theology is remarkably unified. Several processes see to that: the absence of a class of professional theologians, the dominance of management over theology (the main diversity comes from history!), and the propagation of the faith by young, well-trained but non-professional missionaries.
Given how underdeveloped Mormon theology is, I think he is overstating the unity of Mormon doctrine. He continues:
In ritual and other expressions of faith the same standardisation operates. Church services are rite-poor, Protestant in kind in its heavy reliance on preaching ("talks"), listening is the number one activity.
Well, maybe pretending to be listening is the number one activity, but I get his point. Protestant reliance on preaching may be unlike more participatory worship styles in Roman Catholicism and Islam, but I'm not sure that is a strike against the diversity measure or world status. More telling, I think, is the discussion in Part 3 of the series (see link below) about polarization.
Related posts on this topic:
- Part 2 of the series at BCC, talking about the process of identity construction within a church.
- Part 3 of the series at BCC, considering cultural impact and the lack of "marginal members" of the LDS Church outside the Mormon Corridor.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
To Your Name.
I find your comments slightly amusing.
As one who has grown up Mormon, I can remember my mother chiding me when I was very young for one day complaining about how much we talked about Jesus Christ-- in primary, in Sunday School, in Sacrament meeting. I believe for most practicing Mormons, Christ is so much a part of their life and study and so central to the plan of salvation that verbalizing about him almost seems vain, repetitious and "television evangelistic" (to coin a term).
My personal opinion.
Amartel,
I also find your remarks somewhat amusing, if not baffling. You say that verbalizing about Christ seems almost "vain, reptitious, and 'television evangelistic'", but the apostle Paul repeatedly said to his audiences that he preached nothing but "Christ and Him crucified." How can you share your faith if you don't "verbalize" about the One who is the author and perfector of it?
Have a great day...
Amartel,
I am the one who posted the comment you replied to. I have found in talking to Mormons that words we commonly associate with the Christian faith have different meanings to LDS. What is your take on the plan of salvation? What is the gospel message? How did Jesus atone for our sins? I would be very interested in your perspective.
Skipping the threadjack on "What is a Christian?", I'd like to get back to the point of the article, what is a world religion, and is Mormonism there yet?
Members of the church tend to look at the church as a restoration, picking up where the church left off after the great apostasy, and we place a much earlier date for that than other restorationist sects. Church members are prone to think that the church existed in a perfect form and then was restored to a perfect form, meaning that "change" is the contaminant.
What I find interesting is that there is a cycle of development (including change) that all churches seem to go through. What we call the great apostasy, the early Christian church would call it different interpretations, confusing records, and heterodoxy. The Nicene Council - weeding out heresy and clarifying dogma - is very similar to the correlation effort within the LDS church in the 1950s. Both the RC church and the LDS church have purged (excommunicated) intellectuals. It seems to me that the only thing missing is a conciliatory attitude toward schisms. Apart from that, the LDS church has run the cycle the RC church ran, but in less than 200 years instead of 2000.
Dear Dave Banack,
I am compiling a list of Mormon/Religious blogs and their authors' contact information (mailing address and e-mail address) so as to send review copies of HarperOne's recent book: "Longshot" by Lance Allred, in which the first legally deaf player in the NBA tells his unlikely journey from a polygamous compound in Montana to playing with the Cleveland Caveliers today. If you are interested and would like to e-mail me your contact information I would really appreciate it, Thank you!
All the best,
Kat
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.