Over Endowed?

"Are there any forums - not internet, but those in which real people talk and interact in public - in which LDS members answer questions about their history, their cosmology, their understanding of eternal life?"

Clearly you've never been to an LDS Sunday School class in a liberal city, or say, near a college campus. I shouldn't have to tell you that Mormon life outside the Wasatch Front isn't exactly what you see depicted (fairly or not) on Big Love.

Serious, thoughtful Mormons are constantly forced to confront their difficult history. Thousands of young Mormons serve missions each year, and if you think they don't spend hours of their day explaining (and defending) "their history, their cosmology, their understanding of eternal life" then you are mistaken. A church afraid of its history does not send thousands of teenage young men and college-aged females into the world to proselyte. My mission was a crucible for my faith. I nearly left the church after it; and I had to confront the dark night of the soul.

More here:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/03/the-gospel-is-crude/

It seems to me that the Masonic influence, and the gnosticism, are not seperate issues.

Because the Masons are gnostics, too. Reading something like this:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/

by this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pike

Makes that pretty clear.

Something's that's pretty interesting to me, is the "atavistic carnality" of Mormonism, evinced most forcefully in places like these redacted lines from that second "Endowment Ceremony" site that you link to, here, Amy. There, Adam is preached to by the "Sectarian Minister" who goaded by Lucifer preaches more or less orthodox Christian belief on the incorporality of God the Father, and on the reality of Hell. Adam renounces it all, saying:

"They preach of a God who is without body, parts, or passions; who is so large that he fills the universe, and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart; and of a hell, without a bottom, where the wicked are continually burned but are never consumed. To me, it is a mass of confusion."

I find this fascinating, and also rather childish. Looking out at the infinite sky, anything other than negative (apophatic) theology, and the idea that God is anything other than ultimately incomprehensible, is to me manifestly absurd. The profound paradoxes of the Incarnation and Trinity seem to me intuitively reasonable.

The theology of the LDS is to me inexplicably absurd. And Joseph Smith and his scripture obviously fraudulent. That so many manifestly good and intelligent people believe it, is in the end deeply disturbing.

I do not say any of this to be offensive. I only say it because, well, it's too important a subject not to be honest about.

@Ellis

Yes, in fact there are forums, one notably with Evangelical and Mormon perspective. Check out the work of Bob Millet and Greg Johnson and Richard and Claudia Bushman, for example.

Amy is putting forth in this post that Christians in general are "accustomed to explaining their beliefs in the public square" and are "constantly called on to defend and explain what seems absurd to the unbeliever." How is missionary work not doing what she describes? Going door-to-door in the community inviting such inquiry is somehow not relevant? Be the beliefs fraudulent or not, I don't see many Mormons shrinking from sharing them.

@mary martha

"If you don't affirm the Creed then you are not Christian" is but one definition of Christianity. I would point out that Christ is not the author of the Creed, and it does not appear in scripture. And yet you believe, because it comes by way of holy men. Few Catholic rituals appear in scripture, and yet Catholics believe in the rites because they come by way of holy men. There is more than one path to Rome, I believe the saying is.

As for your other points, they're fairly typical criticisms of people of the LDS faith, and I doubt I could disabuse you of your notions.

This post mostly strikes me as an exercise in 'How could Nixon have won, no one I know voted for him?', with the inexplicable addition that the internet doesn't count.

Since the Vatican has determined that LDS baptism is not valid, and baptism is what makes a person Christian, they are not Christians. They may be much more virtuous than the average baptised Christian - or Catholic - but they are not Christians.

Adam,

I didn't mean to offend you and yours.

I always like Mormons. I mean that literally. I went to high school with a bunch of them. I was in the Army with even more. Whenever I run into missionaries, I like them. I can't think of a single Mormon I've ever known or met that I did not like. And that is, honestly, in itself, rather odd.

I like you guys. You're universally nice. But ..

The thing is that the storyline of the Book of Mormon is patently absurd: archeologically, anthropologically, linguistically, historically.. I don't even know where to stop.

Maybe at the fact that modern genetic population surveys show that there is absolutely no relationship between Native American populations and the peoples of the Middle East?

Or at that fact not a single non- Mormon (and no honest and rigorous Mormon) scholar can explicitly relate the "history" in the Book of Mormon to any actual South, Meso, and North American Pre- Colombian archeological site?

Or that there are a plethora of animal and plant species and human technologies mentioned in the Book of Mormon that are not substantiated by the Pre- Colombian American archaeological or historical record between 3100 B.C. and 1492 A.D. - er, like cows, horses, oxen, sheep, pigs, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, silk, steel, brass, plows, swords, chariots and..

Lots of other things.

Or at the point that there is absolutely no archeological evidence of a great battle at the site of Cumorah in Upstate New York?

Or at the slight detail that Native Americans are not in any way genetically related to or descended from any existing Middle Eastern population?

Nephites? Lamanites? And then all that stuff about the earlier Jaredite migration after the Tower of Babel? There were two great migrations over the oceans prior to Columbus?

Huh? What?

You understand that no non- Mormon authorities will support any of it?

If you can believe Joseph Smith's testimony in the face of all this (and there's much much more) you are, you are..

A Latter Day Saint.

Look, Adam (and any other Latter Day Saint who might happen to read this) to point out that you all are living in an intellectual bubble, in a way that no other major, non- cult religious group is, is not bigotry.

It's only pointing out the freaking obvious.

I think one problem with Mormon “apologetics” is the emphasis they put on the “burning in the bosom”. They believe that those who have not experienced this interior conviction can never understand Mormonism – not just theologically, but historically.

A non-Christian can look at the historicity of Christianity: Know where Jesus lived and died, where Paul went, see the historical growth of the Church. We can visit the site of Peter’s tomb. We can walk the Way of the Cross.

As has been pointed out, none of this is possible with Mormonism. There are no departments of Mormon Archaeology at secular universities. Yet Mormons do not have a problem with this, because they felt the “truth” of Mormonism in their hearts.

I am not saying that “interior conversion” is not necessary for Christians, too. But that interior conversion has to do with a personal relationship with God, and the theological truths of the Faith – not its history.

Yet as a apologetic, “This is true because I felt a burning in my bosom” is not really effective in the public square.

Passwords, huh? Also pretty Gnostic. Check out the end of St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 21: "And they instruct them, on their reaching the principalities and powers, to make use of these words: 'I am a son from the Father— the Father who had a pre-existence, and a son in Him who is pre-existent. I have come to behold all things, both those which belong to myself and others, although, strictly speaking, they do not belong to others, but to Achamoth, who is female in nature, and made these things for herself. For I derive being from Him who is pre-existent, and I come again to my own place whence I went forth.' And they affirm that, by saying these things, he escapes from the powers. He then advances to the companions of the Demiurge, and thus addresses them: 'I am a vessel more precious than the female who formed you. If your mother is ignorant of her own descent, I know myself, and am aware whence I am, and I call upon the incorruptible Sophia, who is in the Father, and is the mother of your mother, who has no father, nor any male consort; but a female springing from a female formed you, while ignorant of her own mother, and imagining that she alone existed; but I call upon her mother.' And they declare, that when the companions of the Demiurge hear these words, they are greatly agitated, and upbraid their origin and the race of their mother. But he goes into his own place, having thrown [off] his chain, that is, his animal nature."

Pretty hard on people to make them memorize all that. At least the ancient Egyptians let you take along the Book of the Dead as a cheatsheet. :)

"Are there any forums - not internet, but those in which real people talk and interact in public - in which LDS members answer questions about their history, their cosmology, their understanding of eternal life?"

There was just a viral video that went around of a member of our faith responding to questions as part of university's round table discussion on different religions. I believe that was at Harvard or something like that. I've always been ready to talk to people in public about my 'Mormon' faith. I'm curious as to what particular forum you're looking for?

To say that we're not used to explaining our beliefs in the public square is something I don't relate with. I've been doing it for the past decade.

And there are Mormon Studies programs at secular universities--Claremont University in California is the first one that comes to mind.

Also I don't lose any sleep over the fact the other churches do not accept baptism in the LDS as valid. It does not matter what faith you are when you convert to the LDS church, you will need to be baptized into our faith, too. FYI

"That God would choose a 14-year-old New York farmboy to re-establish his church and kingdom on this earth."

Those of us who believe Jesus (1) was speaking to all of his followers and (2) wasn't lying in Matthew 28:20 dispute that such a re-establishment would be possible.

LDS Mom: But as Amy said in an earlier post, there have been many, many movies and TV shows depicting confession and other Catholic sacraments without incident.

If there was actually wiretapping involved to record this Mormon ceremony, as you insinuate, that is a different thing, but that's the first I heard of that. Since the contents of the cermony were already widely distributed on the Internet and elsewhere, I don't know why that would have been necessary.

Amy wrote: Oh, and I will say that the more you learn about LDS beliefs and worldview, the more the question "Are Mormons Christian" pops up and will just not go away. It cuts to the heart of what Christianity is - is it simply a belief in Jesus' divinity? If so, Mormons are Christian. But if it is more - seriously, if it is even a tiny bit more, creeping out through that initial fence round Jesus' divinity, the answer is "no."

***

I respond to this as someone who was raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism, and who has read a great deal about Mormonism.

For one thing, I would say that I am a little reluctant to declare anyone not to be a Christian who claims to be a Christian . . . because I have plenty of Protestant relatives who think that I, having become Catholic, am no longer a Christian. I don't think cradle Catholics have any idea how much suspicion Catholics are viewed with by many Protestants. And not just die-hard fundamentalist Jack-Chick Protestants either. I think that Catholics are viewed as very "other" by most Protestants.

For another thing, my husband (a cradle Catholic) refers to anyone who is not a Catholic -- i.e., Protestant, Catholic, Muslim -- as a "heretic". While I don't think his definition is technically correct, I think he has a point . . . if Catholicism represents the fullness of truth, then everything else is a lesser truth, by degrees . . . So where do we draw the line between a lesser truth that is still within the "bounds" of Christianity and a lesser truth that has strayed outside of them?

I would say that the heart of Christianity is a belief that Jesus was the Son of God who became man to die on the cross for us to atone for mankind's sin, thus restoring to us the possibility of a life of grace. If we stay in that grace, we will go to heaven.

From my reading about Mormonism, I gather that Mormons *do* believe Jesus had to die for us, but that they understand the meaning of his death differently than most traditional Christians do. (Then again, I would also argue that Catholics understand the meaning of His death differently than Protestants do.)

Mormonism intrigues me because I wonder "how could such good people hold such unusual views"? Spend some time in Salt Lake City and you'll see what I mean. I have never been to a friendlier place. If "by their fruits, ye shall know them," the fruits Mormons bear do speak something positive about their religion.

Amy,

I am a Mormon who got to your site from Michael Spencer's. As I am sure you are aware, he has an article that is making the rounds - http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-coming-evangelical-collapse-a-statistical-review-by-michael-bell.

I must say that I am heartened by the absence of so much hateful, anti-Mormon rhetoric by you (and even by many of those who comment). You seem willing to ask questions and not be so quick to answer them.

I am genuinely interested in understanding the disconnect between the LDS concept of God and that of the Catholic Church and why we are so quick to let those differences come between us. It seems obvious that the forces arrayed against the Christian world will be increasing - we should be looking for ways to stand together against them (as we do with many humanitarian projects) and not apart.

Specifically, I would like to understand the preoccupation with the idea that God, the Father, and Jesus are of the same substance - as indicated in the Nicene Creed. Theologically, this seems to be the deal breaker when it comes to understanding and believing LDS theology.

It was not so for me some 30 years ago when I drifted into Salt Lake City as a ski bum wannabee. The idea that I was not created when I was born, that I lived with a Father in Heaven before I was born and that, as his son, I have the opportunity to grow up to be like him was disruptive and made me think of life and religion in a whole new light. I know of no Mormon who uses this vision of God as our father and Christ as our brother to think that we are in any way or will ever be equal to them. That is the farthest thing from our minds and hearts. We revere them - so arguments of this sort against the LDS faith seem disingenuous, like there are really other reasons for not wanting to understand.

"For the purpose of the ceremony (it seems to me) is, of course, initiation into a deeper life as a Latter-Day Saint today, but it is also about the giving of signs and "tokens" that are needed in the afterlife in order to go through the veil and meet God and become a god.

When I figured that last part out, the LDS objections to the ceremony became more understandable to me, although of course, none of the objections have specifically articulated this point which boils down (it seems to me...again) to: Don't give away the Secret Entry Code to the Uninitiated."

Actually, the reason you haven't seen that argument articulated is because that is not what we are concerned about. Rather that people will come to a conclusion like yours is what we are worried about, because it means you have completely misunderstood the temple ceremony- as you and all others are bound to do.

The Temple endowment is more than simply a recounting of history and a granting of tokens and signs. It is filled with ritualistic symbolism. You called it "gnostic", but the correct word would be "esoteric". They are the mysteries of God, and therefore can not be understood without God's aid.

This is the point that non-Mormons miss, and Mormons often fail to explain because it's so obvious to us it goes without saying. The Temple is the House of God. It is His dwelling place on the earth. That means that while the Spirit of God comes and goes in other places, in the Temple the Spirit of God is always present. You walk into the Temple and you can immediately feel His presence.

Very few of the symbols used in the endowment are ever given an explanation- instead we are directed to let God teach us the meaning of the endowment ceremony. Thus in the endowment, each individual Mormon is being taught not by Priests or the instructors or the film- rather we are being taught directly by God.

This simply doesn't occur outside the Temple. The reason the endowment ceremony is kept "secret" isn't because we want to prevent the uninitiated from learning- it is because what is taught in the Endowment can not be taught outside the Temple.

Mormons would be just as aghast if a group of worthy endowed Mormons were to get together and watch or act out the Temple ceremony in one of their homes. They would almost certainly face Church discipline for such an act. Thus you can see that being an "Initiate" is not the main issue. The point is that the endowment can not be presented outside the Temple and still be the Endowment, because the purpose of the endowment is for God to personally instruct us.

This is why Mormons are upset. Not because we worry you'll discover our secrets. Rather just the opposite- you will think you understand us, when in fact you do not. Furthermore I suspect some of this is a deliberate attempt to drive a wedge between Mormons and evangelicals, and therefore I expect the depiction will be sensationalized and taken out of context. (Considering the endowment is over an hour long, I don't see how they could fairly depict the endowment, even if they wanted to).

It doesn't help that modern culture has essentially rejected true symbolism- which is why modern art thinks its being so deep when in reality it is usually shallow and meaningless.

This is the first fear, and following from that fear is that this misunderstanding will lead to persecution. Least you think that is an irrational fear, may I remind you that just a year ago, major American and British newspapers published editorials and opinion pieces arguing that being a Mormon should disqualify a person from running for President. Furthermore, while the rest of the country has forgotten, Mormons have not, that at one time here in America we were denied trial by jury, denied the right to vote, had our property seized, and were even murdered.

Nor is America even the primary concern. Just one decade ago the Church was suppressed in Ghana. Right now we are under immense pressures in Russia. There are other areas of the world that an inflammatory and deceptive depiction could cause trouble in. For example, will this depiction make it's way to some Chinese official who accepts it as fact instead of dramatization and decides to raid or seize the Mormon Temple in Hong Kong?

We have every reason, and every right to be upset with the actions of HBO in this matter.

"major American and British newspapers published editorials and opinion pieces arguing that being a Mormon should disqualify a person from running for President."

I actually have a great deal of respect for Mormons, who as a general rule live some of the most admirable lives in America today, despite the strangeness of many of their beliefs. They don't do themselves any favors by making factually dubious statements, however. It is true that there were underground "whispering campaigns" against Romney's religion, and even a notorious tirade on The McLaughlin Group by pundit Lawrence O'Donnell (who, I learn from Wikipedia, has made apperances as a lawyer on Big Love! That does make me more sympathetic to the Mormon side.) The claim that were openly anti-Mormon articles in major American newspapers (can't speak for British) is, however, simply false to the best of my knowledge. I would welcome counter-examples if they can be found.

"This simply doesn't occur outside the Temple.... Mormons would be just as aghast if a group of worthy endowed Mormons were to get together and watch or act out the Temple ceremony in one of their homes."

There is a distinguished history behind this attitude. Many of the Church Fathers, and some later groups within both the Catholic and Protestant traditions (such as the Puritans), believed that all drama was morally dubious because it involved acting things out falsely.

Maybe they had a point, but our society has clearly decided long time ago that dramatic presentation, even of holy events, is a legitimate practice. A key scene in The Godfather revolves around a baptism. Probably all seven sacraments have been depicted on camera at one time or another - some, especially confession and marriage, uncountable times. Sometimes these depictions are reverent, sometimes irreverent, sometimes neutral. When they are irreverent there are often objections from the Catholic League or similar groups, but I don't think anyone objects that the mere depiction of the sacrament by actors is intrinsically anti-Catholic. I don't think the Latter-Day Saints can or should expect different treatment.

In response to your question on if there is a forum where Mormons opensly discuss and ask serious questions about their faith there is. Sunstone magazine and independent Mormon magazine sponsors a symposium every year in Salt Lake City in which these sort of issues are dicussed. There are also regional symposiums which do the same thing on a smaller scale. While these symposiums have been critized by some churh leaders they show that there is an element withing Mormonism which seeks to ask hard questions about the faith.

In response to your question about Mormons being Christian I think the statement of Philip Berrigan is quite relevant. He once said that I am a Catholic who is trying to be a Christian. I feel the same way about my Mormonism, I am Mormon who is trying to be a Christian and some days I do better than others.