Pages

Sunday, May 3, 2020

TRULY understanding Mormonism - Is it nobodies business?

I recently made a post called Truly understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, but now I feel the grace has presented itself for me to make a similar post on getting into the mind of a Mormon. In some recent discussions with Mormons, it finally became clear to me what the fundamental issue was, and how Christian apologetics has largely failed to address it. So for this post, I want to try to convey what the actual mindset of Mormons is, and thus know how to actually have a discussion with them. 

Catholic apologetics on Mormonism has largely centered around the Great Apostasy, which is the Mormon dogma that the Gospel was lost some time after the death of the last Apostle, almost 2000 years ago. Many other groups and Protestant denominations hold to a similar idea of Great Apostasy, since it gives them a basis to start up their own Church. And it makes sense, because why have a new Church if you have nothing new to present to people? Well, in this case, we need to see what it is that Mormons have that nobody else has. 

The main problem with the typical Catholic approach to Mormonism is that Catholics think that simply disproving the Great Apostasy is sufficient to win the debate. While it is easy to disprove and discredit the Great Apostasy, the Catholic fails to really get to the heart of Mormonism. Something bigger is at stake, and so just disproving the Great Apostasy doesn't actually shake the Mormon you're talking to at their core. Recall that the Jehovah's Witnesses have lots of tangential issues that Christians get hung up on (e.g. Trinity), never getting to the heart of things. So too, the Mormons have various tangential issues that Christians get hung up on (e.g. polygamy) that really don't get to the heart of things. So we must get to the heart of things.

The heart of things goes back to the year 1820, when Joseph Smith received his "First Vision". Most people are aware that the account goes something like this: Smith was walking alone in the woods, praying for guidance of what Church to join, when God the Father and Jesus appeared to Smith. Jesus told Smith none of the "churches" out there were true and that Smith was to restore the real Church of Jesus Christ. Most non-LDS simply write this off as a fake story of Smith and leave it at that. But they fail to see what in this vision makes all the difference for Mormons. Look at this screen capture below of the official Mormon website says the following under the lesson of "Godhead":
Source: Mormon website "Godhead"
Thus, the crucial thing that Joseph Smith saw at this vision was that not only did Jesus have a human body, but the Father had a human body as well! This means that everything Christianity had been teaching, which is that only Jesus had a human body, was wrong. It means Christianity had "lost" the precious fact that God the Father was himself a human, and he progressed into Godhood, just as Jesus started off as a human and progressed into Godhood. So in the Mormon mind, Christianity had perverted the most important teaching of history: the truth about Who God is. This means that from the Early Church Fathers, up through the Councils, to the present day, all these Christians had gone Apostate by not teaching the proper understanding of God the Father having a body. Being majorly wrong about God is a perfect reason for God to need a Restoration, hence why the Mormons are fully on board and don't worry about flaws in their apostasy claims.

Mormons see the Christian view of the Father as a pure spirit as a sort of Pagan Greek Philosophy. But this ignores the fact the pagans often viewed their gods as glorified humans. An, there's no reason why the Trinity debates of the early centuries needed to be so complicated, since the Early Church Fathers should have had no problem accepting an 'easy' truth such as the Father having a human body. The Mormons also see the Incarnation as something that isn't unique to Jesus, but rather is part of the experience of everyone. In their mind, everyone starts off as a spirit child of heavenly parents, and in due time that spirit child takes on a human body, and that human body is destined to progress into godhood. Of course, this runs into issues when it comes to things like death, since how does a person progress into godhood when their body is the key vehicle to make that progression? Is it technically re-incarnation for someone to get their body back, including the Resurrection of Jesus? 

And, more importantly, what of the Holy Spirit, to which the above quote and LDS theology admit the Holy Ghost does not have a human body? How can the Holy Spirit be God/Divine without a human body to progress into Godhood? I've asked some LDS on this, but they don't seem to have an answer, and I don't think they do. It either means the Holy Spirit cannot be God or else there really is more divine revelation not yet revealed - and either of those two "options" isn't feasible for the LDS, who are supposed to embody the fullness and restoral of all truth. Most LDS do not seem to care about the Holy Spirit not having a body, since the LDS is really fixated on one thing, which is of themself progressing into godhood.

Now you should have a good idea of the fundamental doctrine and mindset of Mormons. It doesn't really matter what you say to them, because they just look at you as being wrong about Who God is, and thus they don't see you as having any credibility. It doesn't matter to them that they have holes in their theology, so as an apologist you can only make so much 'progress' with them when bringing up this or that teaching. In my opinion, asking them about the Holy Spirit not having a body seems to be the strongest approach to take, since it exposes a serious inconsistency in their theology. But don't really expect to make much of an impact, since their theology is very emotionally based, and to leave Mormonism means they leave behind all their friends and family (similar to someone leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses).

It is noteworthy that this post is being written in the spring of 2020, because it was in the spring of 1820 that the LDS say Joseph Smith received this "first vision," so this is the 200th anniversary - an important year for Mormons, yet which they cannot really celebrate during this national quarantine.

9 comments:

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

Thanks much for this provocative post. You are probably cognizant of the fact that I having been deeply exploring/studying Mormonism for over three decades now. As such, this new post of yours is of great interest to me. You wrote:

==The main problem with the typical Catholic approach to Mormonism is that Catholics think that simply disproving the Great Apostasy is sufficient to win the debate.==

For now, I would say that if one has truly disproved “the Great Apostasy" then the very foundation of Mormonism is shattered.

==While it is easy to disprove and discredit the Great Apostasy, the Catholic fails to really get to the heart of Mormonism.==

This comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Personally, it has been my experience over the last three plus decades that disproving and discrediting “the Great Apostasy" has been anything but “easy”. I would be very interested in learning what your apologetic method entails, such that you maintain it is in fact “easy”.

==Something bigger is at stake, and so just disproving the Great Apostasy doesn't actually shake the Mormon you're talking to at their core.==

Once again, I am a bit surprised, in that more than a few Mormons have told me if there was no “Great Apostasy” then there would be no need for a ‘restoration’. With that said, there does seem to be a paradigm shift within Mormonism de-emphasizing this (see the last three posts under THIS LABLE).

This paradigm shift seems to be a 21st movement, and it remains to be seen if becomes a consensus view amongst Mormons.

The rest of your post focuses on the ‘First Vision’ and the corporeality of God the Father. I will not deny this is an important, dividing issue; but for me, I would place some other topics before it. Are you aware of my six part series on the Corporeality of God???

The LDS Quad emphatically teaches Jesus Christ was ‘the Eternal God’ and a member of the Godhead—along the Holy Ghost who has no corporeal body— before his incarnation. As such, when one focuses on the issue of what make God GOD, the topic of whether or not God the Father has a body becomes less important. (See THIS THREAD for some important reflections by Blake Ostler.)

Anyway, shall end here for now. Looking forward continued dialogue with you (and others who may have a shared interest)…


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

Hello David, I unfortunately missed this comment so I didn't get to it earlier.

I have only recently noticed you have been digging into this Mormon issue, and in far more depth than I have.

You said: ///This comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Personally, it has been my experience over the last three plus decades that disproving and discrediting “the Great Apostasy" has been anything but “easy”. I would be very interested in learning what your apologetic method entails, such that you maintain it is in fact “easy”.///

Ha, well, it comes as a surprise to me that you think it's difficult. What do you know that I dont? LOL.

I'm sure you're aware of the standard Catholic arguments against the Great Apostasy (as in 100% apostasy, not merely a severe apostasy), but here are my general thoughts:

(1) There are no texts in the NT that suggest a GA will take place. Mormons desperately look to a few texts that only say there will be a falling away by many.

(2) There are texts within the NT that suggest a GA never could nor will take place, including the standard texts from Matthew. The irony is, the LDS take these very same texts and apply them to the LDS Church to argue that these very same texts prove the Restored Church will never fall away.

(3) From a matter of simple credibility, we can hardly trust a Jesus that established a Church that failed within one generation. So to suggest Jesus can be trusted in restoring a Church 1800 years later after leaving the world in darkness is a laughable claim. The only reason why the LDS even advocate a GA is because the average person doesn't even think along these lines. They have no grasp of 1800 years of darkness.

(4) The LDS borrow heavily from "apostate Christianity," most especially with things like taking the King James Version as their official Bible (with their own edits, but still).

I don't think these arguments are complicated, and I don't think the LDS can really put up a good defense of it. At most, they can merely resist, have some cognitive dissonance, but really in the background they are holding on to more weighty issues, such as their understanding of the Godhead and the risk of losing family ties.

I will take a look at your Six Part series. I am kind of baffled at why the LDS would argue for Jesus being eternally God, since that would undermine the whole point of eternal progression as well as the idea that us humans can have the same prospect. I understand that Mormonism has many blatant inconsistencies, but I wouldn't expect something this blatant.

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

So good to see that you have noticed my post. I have also seen that you have started to comment in the AF threads that explore the topic of the corporeality of God. I am looking forward to some in depth dialogue with you on this issue, as well as the apostasy; but alas, I will not have the time to do so until Thursday. Hope to ‘see’ you then…


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Nick,

Was finally able to respond again to Dennis over at AF, and now have the time to share some thoughts on your last comment/post. You wrote:

==I'm sure you're aware of the standard Catholic arguments against the Great Apostasy (as in 100% apostasy, not merely a severe apostasy)==

If by “standard” you are referring primarily to the argument that the Catholic Church has retained the ‘keys’ of the kingdom that Jesus gave to His apostles—via apostolic succession—which inextricably includes the continuing work of the Holy Spirit, especially through the Petrine apostolic see, then yes. {I would add that this “standard” argument must include a comprehensive defense/understanding of doctrinal development.) [I am being simplistic here due to the inherent limitations of combox posts.]

Before moving on to your 4 points, I would like to relate a very important lesson (truism?) I have learned during my studies on Mormonism—the indefensible position of Protestant denominations/sects who argue for a partial apostasy instead of a total apostasy. If the Catholic Church (I personally include the Eastern Orthodox churches here) was not in a state of total apostasy, there is no valid argument for the hundreds of schisms that Protestantism has created.

Moving on, you wrote:

==(1) There are no texts in the NT that suggest a GA will take place. Mormons desperately look to a few texts that only say there will be a falling away by many.==

I agree that the majority of texts Mormons employ affirm the falling away of many, not all; but there are a few that seem to indicate totality.

==(2) There are texts within the NT that suggest a GA never could nor will take place, including the standard texts from Matthew. The irony is, the LDS take these very same texts and apply them to the LDS Church to argue that these very same texts prove the Restored Church will never fall away.==

I am sure that you are aware that Mormons apply some of “the standard texts from Matthew” to the Church in heaven, and some to the end of the Jewish dispensation.

== (3) From a matter of simple credibility, we can hardly trust a Jesus that established a Church that failed within one generation. So to suggest Jesus can be trusted in restoring a Church 1800 years later after leaving the world in darkness is a laughable claim. The only reason why the LDS even advocate a GA is because the average person doesn't even think along these lines. They have no grasp of 1800 years of darkness.==

For me, this is by far the strongest of your 4 points, and one that LDS apologists have not provided solid answer for.

== (4) The LDS borrow heavily from "apostate Christianity," most especially with things like taking the King James Version as their official Bible (with their own edits, but still).==

Here are a couple online articles that discuss the KJV from a Mormon perspective:

7 Things All Mormons Should Know About The King James Bible

why does the Church still use the King James Version

By far, the most exhaustive treatment by a Mormon on this subject is J. Reuben Clark’s, Why the King James Version (Amazon).

Shall end here for now. I am going to start working on a new post that will provide the best Mormon arguments for a total apostasy I have read.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hey Nick,

Whilst working on the new post mentioned above, a debate between Steve Clifford (Catholic) and Barry Bickmore (Mormon) came to mind:

Who Holds the Keys?

Have you read this debate ???


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

Thank you David, I'm in a time crunch this weekend, but will get back to this. I'll take a look at that debate and look forward to your upcoming post.

Nick said...

David, I have been talking to some Mormons about why they aren't in Missouri when Smith and D&C expressly say Jackson County Missouri is the "Promise Land" of "inheritance" (cf Abraham's promises) where Zion is to be (re)established. I told them that going to Utah seems to be against the goal/mission of Smith, and indeed going to Utah would thus be more of a chastisement than a blessing. They only went to Utah because of persecution and infighting in Missouri.

To my surprise, some LDS are saying being in Utah is indeed a chastisement from God, which means that the past 150 years have been a chastisement for the LDS! What? That's astonishing. The LDS and their leaders have been giving off nothing but a positive vibe about their mission and status. No indication they are supposed to be in penitential mode, and no indication they are living in sin (which they aren't). So why chastisement? It would mean the Restored Church has been crippled and on pause for most of it's existence, which is twice as long as the 70 years in Bablylon for some pretty blatant sins by the Israelites.

Any information or thoughts on this?

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

Last night, you wrote:

==I have been talking to some Mormons about why they aren't in Missouri when Smith and D&C expressly say Jackson County Missouri is the "Promise Land" of "inheritance" (cf Abraham's promises) where Zion is to be (re)established.==

The topic of “Zion” is an interesting one (IMO). Bruce R. McConkie identified no less that 7 different—though related—uses of the term “Zion” within the LDS paradigm. The 1st/primary meaning from his second edition of Mormon Doctrine is as follows:

>>1. Zion is the name given by the Lord to his saints; it is the name by which the Lord's people are always identified. Of the saints in Enoch's day the record says: "And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." (Moses 7:18.) "This is Zion - THE PURE IN HEART," he said in this day. (D. & C. 97:21.) Thus The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Zion. Joining the Church is becoming a citizen of Zion. Many revelations speak of Zion in this sense. Before the organization of the Church, the command was given to a number of brethren, "Seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion." (D. & C. 6:6; 11:6; 12:6; 14:6.) On the day of its organization, the Lord commended The Prophet for his diligence, prayers, and labors in bringing forth Zion. (D. & C. 21:7-8.) After its organization various brethren were commanded to labor in Zion with all their power and strength. (D. & C. 24:7; 30:11; 93:53.)>> [For the above and the 6 other meanings see pages 854, 855 in Mormon Doctrine, 1966]

==I told them that going to Utah seems to be against the goal/mission of Smith, and indeed going to Utah would thus be more of a chastisement than a blessing. They only went to Utah because of persecution and infighting in Missouri, so it was a reluctant relocation to the non-Promise Land.==

Many Mormons first fled to Commerce/Nauvoo, Illinois. After the death of Joseph Smith, the migration to Utah began.

I think we need to be a bit careful when attempting to interpret the germane passages from D&C—e.g. 57, 58, 101. I see some parallel between how Mormons now interpret those passages when compared to the understanding of the contemporary generation wherein they were given, with how Christians now understand the Biblical passages concerning Jesus Christ’s second coming when compared to the 1st and 2nd century understanding—i.e fulfillment was to be much later than initially thought.

For some interesting comments by Joseph Smith concerning the Missouri conflict, expulsion, and future return see pages 33-37 in the Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Cont’d

David Waltz said...

Cont’d

From the same book we read:

>>President Joseph Smith’s Remarks—The Whole of America Zion—April Conference, 1844

President Joseph Smith said:—It is just as impossible for me to continue the subject of yesterday as to raise the dead. My lungs are worn out. There is a time to all things,6 and I must wait. I will give it up, and leave the time to those who can make you hear, and I will continue the subject of my discourse some other time. I want to make a proclamation to the Elders. I wanted you to stay, in order that I might make this proclamation.7 You know very well that the Lord has led this Church by revelation.8 I have another revelation in relation to economy in the Church—a great, grand, and glorious revelation.9 I shall not be able to dwell as largely upon it now as at some other time; but I will give you the first principles.10 You know there has been great discussion in relation to Zion-- where it is,11 and where the gathering of the dispensation is,12 and which I am now going to tell you. The prophets have spoken and written upon it; but I will make a proclamation that will cover a broader ground. The whole of America is Zion13 itself from north to south, and is described by the Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord14 should be, and that it should be in the center of the land.15 When Elders shall take up and examine the old prophecies in the Bible, they will see it.

6. Eccl. 3:1; D&C 88:58.
7. D&C 124:2-3.
8. D&C 102:1; D&C 107:58-59.
9. D&C 110:13.
10. Heb. 5:12.
11. D&C 84:2-4.
12. D&C 57:1-3.
13. Alma 46:17.
14. Isa. 2:3; Micah 4:2; Joel
2:1; Joel 3:17; Zech. 8:3.
15. D&C 57:3.>>

[Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1976 - p. 362]

Anyway, like so many things Mormon, answers are rarely easy/simple.


Grace and peace,

David