Wow. This is a pretty strong article that discusses what is happening these days in the Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopal Church as they adopt liberal politics and liberal theology. To sum up:
So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program — ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth — or die. Sure
I think that fair. Depending upon what one means by liberal theology, one has to ask at a certain point why one would even both being a member of such a group.
Let the conservative sneering begin…er, continue. But for the record, liberalness never was orderliness and it certainly isn’t about maintianing the status quo. My guess is that cutting-edge religion has always been sneered at by the crowd that flatters itself.
It’s not sneering. At least it isn’t in my case. It is abundantly demonstrable that liberal groups tend not to prosper that well. It becomes primarily social, from what I can see.
If one denies most of the reality behind religion exactly what does religion offer than non-religious groups don’t also offer?
Take the “symbolic testimony” that John Dehlin put up. Honestly, at what point does religion become irrelevant? If say many Episcopalians don’t even believe in God in any meaningful sense, what does the Episcopalian Church offer beyond a social gathering and perhaps a place to sing songs? (Note I’m not saying that all Episcopalians only view the Episcopalian church in that fashion – but according to polls there are many people who do)
Hmmm, does “cutting-edge religion” include a Christian church that cannot even agree that Jesus Christ is the Lord?
Does “cutting-edge” include the same ol’ tired resorts to symbolism and mush that have been happening for at least a hundred years?
“…does “cutting-edge religion” include a Christian church that cannot even agree that Jesus Christ is the Lord?”
Yes, as does non-cutting-edge religion.
“Does “cutting-edge” include the same ol’ tired resorts to symbolism and mush that have been happening for at least a hundred years?”
Ditto.
Basically what I see here is a general disrespect for the validity of the religions of others. And popularity is not the hallmark of true religion as we Mormons know so well.
Yes, Matt, I will agree with you that popularity is not the hallmark of true religion. I will also agree with you that I do not think a religion that denies Jesus Christ is the Lord is valid, especially based on the standards of Moroni, who, near the end of the BoM (chapter 7) tells us how to judge good from evil:
A religion that persuades people not to believe in Jesus Christ as the Lord is not true, and I have no problem pointing that out. This does not mean this religion does not have true elements in it — almost all religions do. This does not mean that it does not have good and righteous members and people who serve the Lord. This does not mean people cannot draw closer to God by practicing this religion — I believe they can. But, based on Moroni’s test and basic common sense, I have no problem saying this religion is not valid.
“I will also agree with you that I do not think a religion that denies Jesus Christ is the Lord is valid…”
Just to be clear, you’re not agreeing with me on this because this is not what I said or believe.
While it may be true that a certain church/religion is more true than others, it is not true that others are therefore invalid.
Geoff B,
You are most generous in characterizing the linked piece as an “article.” It seems to me precisely the reason I stopped participating at BeliefNet: self-persuading, one-sided diatribes trashing others’ religions.
Imagine what would happen if the LDS Church happened to wander past the author’s crosshairs.
Matt: While it may be true that a certain church/religion is more true than others, it is not true that others are therefore invalid.
Exactly what do you mean by valid or invalid?
“Exactly what do you mean by valid or invalid?”
Clark, that question kind of hurts my head to think about and makes me want to ask: exactly what you mean by “Exactly what do you mean by valid or invalid?”?
But here goes…
Geoff says “based on Moroni’s test and basic common sense, I have no problem saying this religion is not valid.”
To which I will now expand: even a religion that worships the devil is valid.
And greenfrog is right to surmise that the author of the so-called article is not likely to consider Mormons even worthy of inlusion among the liberal riff-raff, let alone the true believers.
…though, if we’re lucky he still may consider us a valid religion with the possible caveat that we may not be valid Christians. So are we sure we want to join-in with others who decry the invalidity of various belief systems?
“(Note I’m not saying that all Episcopalians only view the Episcopalian church in that fashion – but according to polls there are many people who do)”
Clark, there are so many things wrong with this that I don’t know where to start–which Episcopalians? whose “meaning”? After all, it would be easy to find people who are nominally Mormon who don’t believe in God, and there are plenty of Christians who don’t think Mormonism’s worship of God is “meaningful.” If you haven’t spent any time in an Episcopal church lately, it’s probably best not to pick on them as an example. I sing in an Episcopal choir, and it turns out that there are lots of Episcopalians who are very serious about their belief in God. It happens, as well, that the light of Christ can shine quite beautifully in an Episcopal meeting.
This kind of trashing other religions isn’t worthy of Saints, in my opinion. I wish you’d leave it to the folks who enjoy it, Geoff. Truth will shine forth–no need to go around throwing globs of mud at other people’s small candles if you’ve got the big, bright lantern. Better to spend time polishing the glass through which you see darkly.
I would say the the church of the devil is the very definition of invalidity – as in everything said church does or promotes will ultimately be overthrown – of no lasting value or force whatever.
I won’t quote the dictionary. The semantics are obvious enough.
Sociology of religion–or just a quick look at some basic stats–will tell you that liberal churches have been in decline for a long time. But all the explanations for this do not exactly point to doctrinal liberalism as the cause. One good explanation is that conservative churches tend to find ways to reduce free-riding: asking for tithing and service to the church, teaching people that getting into the clergy is a good idea, etc. Because these churches are able to reduce free-riding, they are able to offer a lot more “religious goods”. This explains why people continue to join churches that ask a lot of them. Requiring or asking for contributions of various kinds from members does seem to go together empirically with doctrinal conservativism, but it’s not the same thing. The problem could possibly be stated that liberal churches have too many 1s and too few 90 and 9s–not exactly absolute proof that they are reaping what they sow in losing members. After all, “free-riding” in some sense the situation of all believers. Number of adherents and growth or decline rates is not a very good standard of doctrinal correctness. I’m not buying the line of some liberal Christians that we must accept gay marriage or be swept away by history. But while I accept our view of the issue, I also don’t buy the reverse.
“Hmmm, does “cutting-edge religion” include a Christian church that cannot even agree that Jesus Christ is the Lord?”
I agree that the notion “cutting-edge religion” is kind of silly, but this comment seems to be a bit of a cheap shot. The American Council of Catholic Bishops has members who are probably best described as agnositcs. And yet I don’t hear the Catholic church derided as decadent and unbelieving during this kind of discussion (the “look at what those nutty gay marrying liberal churches are doing now” kind of discussion). Whatever claims some Episcopalians may make, 95% of Christians in the world are going to let their church in the door of Christendom before they let ours in. Kinda puts things in perspective. It’s as if we’re imagining some future day when we’re generally accepted within Christianity, and can then begin the hard work of booting people out. I don’t what the point of revealing how many Episcopalians are merely social Christians could have besides this. I’m not sure that every Mormon ward would be ashamed to have a good number of people of weak faith in the pews each Sunday.
Every web log should have a semi-automated system for inquiring what another web posters email address is.
I do not believe that Stove’s depiction is a complete carcicature, but seeing as how I do not know DKL’s email address I have a hard time taking it off line, but will comply here of course. My email address is b.u.t.l.e.r.m at middle dot net, necessary transformations applied – only one dot, if DKL cares to continue the discussion.
Wrong thread.
“I won’t quote the dictionary.”
That’s good, Mark…’cause I don’t even know what you’d look for. Maybe the word “valid”? Hmmm… well if you want to argue about whether a religion that worships the devil is a valid religion, you won’t find help in the dictionary. So yes, you’re left with an argument about semantics which is really quite weak…regardless of how obvious it may seem to you.
You asked for it:
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Now in which of these five senses is the church of the devil valid?
Is it well grounded? efficacious? binding? correctly derived? robust?
Or perhaps there is a common definition that the dictionary left out. I could start on the scriptures if you like.
Jeremiah, isn’t Rodney Stark the most famous popularizer of the notion that “expensive” religions will retain adherents more successfully than others? And isn’t that thesis in trouble a little bit these days? LDS numbers are flat, at best, and even Catholics seem worried by conversions to Pentacostal churches in Latin America, right? Are there newer theories that take these trends into account?
A typical Catholic conversion to Pentacostalism is definitely one from a lax status quo to a relatively involved and demanding faith. Much more than to contemporary liberal denominations or to the eternal security (“once saved, always saved”) perversion of Calvinism that is fortunately now on the decline.
There are a handful of key prophecies about the numbers of the Latter-day Saints prior to the Millennial era:
Needless to say the great an abominable church is not the other churches who sincerely believe in Jesus Christ, the great and abominable church is the church of the devil – the whore of Babylon:
The great and spacious building is more like a mall than a conventional church. Too bad that John didn’t include a better description of the intellectual support structure.
Mark Butler —
We’d gladly offer the ability to let commenters email each other through the blog (without revealing the commenters email address), but that would require every commenter to log in and register, and we’ve made a conscious decision not to do that.
Kristine, I think you misread what I wrote, I certainly don’t doubt in the least that there are many congregations of Episcopalians with fervent belief in God. And many of these are quite perturbed at those attempting to dominate who don’t hold such belief. I have a hard time seeing these believers as part of the more liberal wing of the Anglican faith.
Consider articles like this one. The money quote:
There are numerous polls on these matters. One well known one is the fact 1/3 of Anglican clergy don’t believe in the Resurrection.
I just picked Episcopalian because these polls are well known in the American and English forms of the general religion.
But your example of Mormons who don’t believe in God is apt as well. I don’t understand that in the least as well.
To clarify since I think some are misunderstanding my position. I’m certainly not in the least condemning the believers within the various forms of Anglicanism. Far from it. Rather I worry when any Church (our own included) has significant numbers of people stop believing in God and in the basics of Christianity. Within Christianity certainly sects differ. And many sects definitely don’t like Mormons. But at least they are communicating a fair degree of the truth. When that ceases I think it is both a cause for concern and a reason to mourn.
When this starts to happen in Churches their numbers start to dwindle. I think this is unarguable. This is partially because (IMO) there isn’t a good reason to continue to go to church. More significantly there is far, far less reason for the children. And this is a concern in the Episcopalian church. This poll is well known for instance.
But don’t get me wrong. I’m not in the least worried about the believers in Christ and God in the Episcopalian faith. Far from it. I hope they can reverse the trends they are facing.
Matt, #11, if even devil worshipping is a valid religion I confess I’m still at a loss to understand what you mean by valid. It almost sounds as if you mean that it fits under the category of religion. But that’s not too helpful since then “valid religion” is a tautology since it reduces to “every religion is a religion.” So I assume you mean something else.
I’m honestly not trying to be snarky or engage in rhetorical tricks. I just can’t make heads or tails out of what you’re trying to say. So if you could, in the interests of communication, expand upon your comments and perhaps use different language it would be helpful.
Bryce (#23), It was just a suggestion for web logs in general. I realize the security issues are problematic – someday we need a real certificate infrastructure without the Verisigns of the world neediing to make an arm and a leg off of it, every single year(!).
Better than passwords, it would be nice if a website could respond with a limited certificate that verifies the relative identity of a poster, sort of like a stamp at an amusement park – Like a cookie, except transferable to another computer, and verifiable by a chain of cooperating websites, with transitive trust sort of like a PGP key.
No need to involve the user for things that last only a single session, but the browser would pop up a dialog asking if he or she wants to accept a credential issued from abc.com, (if he does not already have one of course).
Then when using a different website for the first time, the use should have the option of identifying himself using the credential issued by another website, which can be cached or trusted as appropriate. Sort of like opening a wallet and submitting the appropriate identification card, but without losing one’s privacy, just to establish a unity of persona.
Now certain credentials should be able to be tagged as automatically submittable to certain classes of websites, whenever a form containing one’s email address is submitted. That way the user would not have pick one to submit.
Finally, there should be a federated service that grants credentials to people based on a valid email address alone, so that credential could be used over and over again without the request – reply – confirm rigamarole so often used these days.
Of course, no doubt Microsoft wouldn’t implement this unless they saw a way to shut the rest of the world out.
OK, time for some explanations. I’m at fault for posting the above without explanation, but I often do that because of lack of time.
1)The main reason I was posting this was really because I thought readers had not seen it and may find it interesting. I’m not Catholic and I don’t support all of the positions of the author, but I thought the information provided on liberal Christianity to be interesting, whether or not I agreed with the writer’s perspective. I’m also interested as an amateur historian to watch how churches change over time. Presbyterians from 150 years ago would not recognize their church today, nor would most Episcopalians.
2)I’m really not interested in criticizing Episcopalians or Presbyterians per se. I really don’t have a dog in that fight, and I agree with Kristine (#14) that the light of Christ is at Episcopalian churches and, in fact, in most churches that teach good principles. I have many friends and even a few family members who go to the Episcopalian church, and more good goes on there than bad.
3)However, I do think it is worth pointing out a few things. The first is that churches that try to fit the world’s standards rather than God’s standards inevitably will go off track, and in this case liberal Christianity is a very good example of this. If a Christian church cannot agree that Jesus Christ is Lord, then it is heading down the wrong path. I don’t think we are in danger of doing this, which is why I am so happy we have prophets and apostles leading our church. But there are members who would try to push us down paths of their own making. Clark provides a good example in #3. I think we need to be very careful about this. The warning about the “philosophies of men” is very apt.
4)There is a delicate line between criticizing other churches and defending yours and its doctrine. What is the purpose of the bloggernacle if not to discuss doctrine and, in many cases, defend ours? Liberal Christianity believes in many doctrines that I believe are just plain wrong. In fact, mainstream Christianity believes in doctrines that are just plain wrong. And, in fact, the prophet, in much more kindly language than I could ever muster, says the exact same thing right here. So, I don’t think I’m off-base in raising issues of disagreement with other churches, although if you want to criticize me for using impolitic language, well, you may have a point.
5)Commenters who have discussed the issue of popularity make an interesting point, which should be addressed. We know that the followers of the Church of the Lamb will be “few” in the last days. I happen to believe that the Church of the Lamb includes others who are not LDS. But the point is that, if you look at Daniel’s prophecy and the prophecies of modern-day prophets, it is clear that the Church of the Lamb will grow over time in the latter days. And, even though growth has flattened out, we are continuing to grow. The doctrines of the Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopalian church are causing followers to leave in droves. There is a real possibility that these churches may cease to exist in our lifetimes. I think you could look at these churches and make comparisons to the RLDS or the churches started by Sidney Rigdon after he left the church. So, popularity does matter if churches become so unpopular that they approach irrelevancy.
“churches that try to fit the world’s standards rather than God’s standards inevitably will go off track” — Geoff
I think that the LDS Fundamentalists would agree with you. To them, the LDS Church has abandoned God, and gone off track by:
I know that many of you will see these changes as God’s will–and I’m very open to that. But to say that these weren’t impacted dramatically by social pressure, in my opinion, is to be naive. If our church has shown anything, it’s a willingness to change based on social pressure (when it’s in the Church’s interest to do so). To point at other churches and criticize them for changing, and not to notice/acknowledge our fundamental changes as well–is disingenuous (to me)…though I understand why we do it.
“Jeremiah, isn’t Rodney Stark the most famous popularizer of the notion that “expensive” religions will retain adherents more successfully than others? And isn’t that thesis in trouble a little bit these days? LDS numbers are flat, at best, and even Catholics seem worried by conversions to Pentacostal churches in Latin America, right?”
1) This is all comparative. That is, ‘expensive’ religions do better than inexpensive ones. Doesn’t mean the expensive religions are always and everywhere thriving, just that the inexpensive kind are doing worse.
2) The LDS aren’t the only expensive religion. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, who are far more demanding, are growing rapidly.
3) In much of Latin American, Catholicism is not an expensive religion. Pentecostalism requires a lot more of a commitment.
There is a difference between responding to social pressure and embracing it, or even creating that pressure.
One of the journalists at getreligion.org says the following three questions always cut through the fog:
Churches that aren’t founded on the rock of Jesus Christ and him crucified, and who refuse to object to the characteristic sins of the age (crying Lord, Lord, but having their hearts far from him), will founder. They work by nostalgia and reflex.
Its interesting to note that there are lots of conservative Eps here in Dallas Fort Worth. They even have some mega churches. One of the Ep Mega churches has a huge childrens castle. Its also interesting that one of the main opponents (Bishop Riker) of the current liberal leadership of the Eps is here in DFW.
This article pretty much sums up my repeated arguments concerning relaxing LDS standards and beliefs in the bloggernacle. To do so would be a disaster. The bretheren are aware of the last results that 40 years of Liberal Christianity have wrought.
Adam,
I do that in many instances, we are embracing the social pressure that caused us to reverse all of those doctrines and/or policies.
I don’t mean to be disrecpectful, but when we make a major doctrinal and/or policy change due (at least in part) to social pressure…it seems to me as though we not only embrace it, we cling to it with our dear lives.
John, this has been discussed ad nauseum in the Bloggernacle, but I suppose I must once again address this issue. I don’t accept your claim that the Church has made major changes because of social pressure.
If the Brethren acted because of social pressure, how do you explain the many ways in the which the Church has not caved to social pressure and in fact has become more restrictive? I am thinking of WoW issues and tithing issues, for example, in which we have furthered distanced ourselves from “the world” in the last 100 years. If the Brethren were concerned about social pressures, they would have maintained policies that allowed people to get baptized without asking them about the WoW, and the temple rec interview would be less restrictive.
The reality is that it’s a much more complex picture than you like to paint. To paraphrase Joseph Smith, God, acting through his prophets, often acts in seemingly contradictory ways. At one time, he orders Joshua to kill every living creature, at another he says, “thou shalt not kill.” Jesus directly contradicted Leviticus (stone the adulterer) because the times and rules had changed. Modern-day prophets will also change rules as God encourages them to, sometimes seemingly because of social pressure (blacks and the priesthood).
By the way, for a more complete understanding of the history around the 1978 priesthood decision, I would encourage people to read “Lengthen Your Stride,” President Kimball’s biography. The book describes better than I could ever explain how the 1978 decision was made by the prophet after fasting, prayer and consultation with the Lord.
John D. (#29),
That argument is post hoc ergo propter hoc – after it, therefore because of it. The proper question to be asked is are there legitimate theological reasons for the changes in consideration. A secondary question is why is it impermissible for a Church to make corrections to improper interpretations of its own doctrines?
I think you will be hard pressed to find any theologian who believes that the race based priesthood policies in the modern era were based on a revelation of any kind – but rather that they were based on a questionable interpretation of a five thousand year old document.
To the degree the scriptures talk about lineal priesthood it is passed down from father to son – there is nothing about the priesthood being passed from mother to son. If the scriptures are correct, much of the African race’s patrilineal descendancy goes through Ham who was a son of Noah. The patrilineal descendancy of Cain, and pretty much everyone else, was presumably wiped out in the flood.
So even the scripture itself is questionable in terms of the patrilineal priesthood. And then we have the doctrine of adoption taught by Paul and Joseph Smith – a two thousand year old precedent for overriding or adapting the rules of patrilineal priesthood so that all the righteous may be heirs to the Abrahamic covenant.
In short this change was in favor of the theology taught in the scriptures and by Joseph Smith, and not against it. There are similar arguments to be made with regard to the other things you have mentioned, although I think you have taken some statements out of context, or made a man an offender for a word. D&C 132 is still the canonized doctrine of the Church. What is non-doctrinal is the practice thereof without explicit divine sanction given through the man who holds the keys, in our day Gordon B. Hinckley himself.
If I were a journalist interested in cutting through the fog of false Christianity, I’d prefer these three questions to the shibboleths preferred above:
1. Should we really love our enemies? How do you implement that teaching? How have you failed to do so?
2. Should we really forgive others’ sins? Really? No human-inflicted punishment for retributive purposes, at all? How do you implement that teaching? How have you failed to do so?
3. How much time each week do you devote to preparation for and participation in organizational worship and meetings? How much time each week do you devote to visiting those in prison, feeding the hungry, and caring for the sick?
I don’t think how a person articulates the specific contents her belief matters anywhere near as much as what she actually does.
To answer Mark’s insistance that the dictionary proves that the word ‘valid’ cannot possibly be applied to a religion that worships Beelzabub:
Mark wrote:
Starting with the last ridiculous statement… Does the dictionary have to specifically include devil-worship as an exception to the proper use of valid in the context of religion for you to accept this idea? Quote the scripture all you want, though I doubt you’ll come up with anything better than Geoff already cited in comment 7.
While I agree that from an LDS perspective all other religions may appear invalid, it would help if we acknowledge this to be a very narrow view of what might be considered valid religion.
Ultimately, I build my use of the term “valid religion” on the idea that all religion, including our own, is a continuum of truth and usefulness. And even a claim to being the most true church says very little about where on that contiuum such a church would fall and it says very little about where such a church sits in relation to all other churches no matter what they worship or how…and including no church at all.
It is from this perspective that I’ll restate some things I wrote ealier in this thread:
1. Basically what I see here is a general disrespect for the validity of the religions of others.
2. While it may be true that a certain church/religion is more true than others, it is not true that others are therefore invalid.
3. Mormonism is held as invalid by others (a point made by other commentors as well)
4. So are we sure we want to join-in with others who decry the invalidity of various belief systems?
Clark, I hope that clarifies a bit my use of the word ‘valid’ with regards to the religions and/or beliefs of others. Though I’ve lost hope of gaining acceptance for this idea among those who think they absolutely adhere to the one and only valid religion.
Matt, to rephrase in my own words, you are equating valid with “works” or “is useful”? Thus a valid religion is a religion useful for at least one person (regardless of what that that is working for)
I have a couple of problems with this. First, there is a bit of equivocation. I think when others decry Mormonism as invalid they are not using invalid in the sense you are. Rather they are using it is the sense of “harmful” or “untrue.” But clearly those aren’t the senses you are using it in. So we have to be careful not to redefine words in an idiosyncratic sense and then say everyone else is thinking in that fashion.
Second, I think it is perfectly acceptable to question whether religions are “valid” (i.e. useful). Thus I personally don’t have any problem with say Krakauer criticizing Mormonism for in effect the dangers of a culture of violence. I may think he is off base because he does this poorly or deceptively. But I don’t mind that kind of criticism and indeed think it important.
What I see you saying is that so long as someone claims something is useful we can not engage that belief into discussion. I just can’t accept that and truly feel that to do so would completely cut of the kind inquiry so essential for human development.
Thanks Clark,
So you insist as well that I’m redefining the meaning of the word ‘valid’ by using it with regards to the religions/beliefs of others? I’m just a little disappointed.
I’m not saying that “so long as someone claims something is useful”, rather so long as it is in fact useful and to some degree true. I think there’s a distiction there not an equivocation.
I didn’t say that either.
Perhaps if I put it this way:
All religions are more or less a failed attempts at some ideal and, though I find the attempt admirable and can agree that some have more inspiring ideals and/or more success (whatever that is) than others, I find it therefore utterly useless and the height of absurdity to point the finger at others and proclaim their beliefs to be invalid.
Perhaps we could further the discussion then by simply claiming to be less sucky than everyone else and therefore the only valid faith? On second thought…
Oh, I know. Let’s just acknowledge that none of us *really* knows enough about what is going on to make a claim to sole validity; that we all pretty much suck equally in the grand scheme of things.
Is there social pressure to drop tithing and WOW like there was to get rid of polygamy and give blacks the priesthood?
Part of what I was asking Jeremiah (or anybody) is, if becoming more liberal is to blame for declining numbers among mainline Protestant churches, what is to blame for declining numbers among Mormons? If we’re not accomodating to worldly pressures, but we’re still losing people (or not gaining converts as fast as we used to, at the very least), then why trumpet the notion that accomodation causes decline?
Kristine, I think Mormon numbers are flat or slowly increasing. I don’t believe they are decreasing based upon the figures I’ve seen. But there certainly are those who have criticized our not focusing in on key doctrine for the relatively recent slower growth.
It’s somewhat out of date being about 5 years old, but so far as I know the American Religious Identification Survey is the most accurate gauge of religious affiliation. Mormons in the US had a 1.3% growth rate from 1990 – 2001. So it’s definitely not as good as it should be. (And nowhere near what groups like the Catholics with large immigration had) Although to be completely fair the Anglicans had a 1.7% (although once again I believe that is in part due to immigration)
But I think it entirely fair to debate why Church growth has slowed and even if it is akin to what was discussed in Alma 4. So I don’t find the topic out of bounds in the least. I should add that we’ve had several posts on that topic here, including this one here and this one at BT. So we (me) are definitely equal opportunity about all this.
Some people have argued that LDS accommodation the past decade and a half has led to decrease in Mormon growth. I think myself there is some truth to that although I personally think that, if temporary, the benefits can outweigh the costs.
Matt, the equivocation is because I don’t believe when most Evangelicals criticize us it is primarily over the issue of “validity” in the sense you discuss. I should add that I don’t mind in the least Evangelicals, naturalists, or anyone else criticizing us. For instance I don’t mind the book The New Mormon Challenge and have had many interesting discussions over it. All I ask is that they get our beliefs right and try not to misrepresent us. All of us being human we’ll still make mistakes. But so long as we’re honest I think criticism of Mormons by other faiths is entirely fair so long as it is honestly done.
My sense is you’d disagree.
I recognize that you find criticism, as you put it, “utterly useless and the height of absurdity.” I strongly disagree and think that this is how we come to understand. It doesn’t make sense to me in the least that we’d all be trying to understand in a community effort in every endeavor except religion.
Surely religious truth is something we ought debate and inquire after. It’s not at all clear to me why one should adopt an anything goes attitude. We don’t do that with any other area of human inquiry. Certainly I’d hate if science were conducted in that fashion.
“I recognize that you find criticism, as you put it, “utterly useless and the height of absurdity.””
Clark, I though I had already made it clear. I have no problem with criticism…in case you haven’t noticed. My problem is with unfounded claims to exclusive religious validity. How ever did you make the jump to my being anti-criticism?
But as long as you insist that your take is my meaning, then I can understand why you might see equivocation.
I’m really not sure where you get the idea that I think anything goes *and* that I want to shut-down debate. On the other hand, for one to claim that only their point of view is valid (be it religion or whatever)…this suggests that one is above criticism and that there is no need for further discussion because all other points of view are invalid.
Because the criticism I am talking about is precisely the criticism of validity. You started out saying, “Basically what I see here is a general disrespect for the validity of the religions of others.” It is once again not at all clear to me what you are saying. Are you just saying you don’t think we’re supplying enough reasons for our criticisms? Or are you saying something more. It sure seemed to me like you were attacking the very criticism of validity.
Could you perhaps clarify what exactly you see that we are doing wrong? Certainly in terms of utility I am not saying there is only one religion useful to people at a given time. Far from it. I’m not sure how you would get that from my comments. It seems that both Geoff and myself have been pretty emphatic that the light of Christ is in most Christian churches. I’ve not seen anyone adopting anything akin to the idea that only one religion is useful and has truth.
Are you sure you aren’t raising a lance at a man made of straw?
Clark, don’t get me wrong…in my mind you’re totally free to criticize validity. I’m just saying that it shouldn’t be done when such criticism is unfounded. To claim that one’s religion is the only valid religion and that all others are invalid…this isn’t just criticism, it’s…how did DKL put it? Oh yeah, it’s “unremittingly stupid”. And I’m talking about the claim, not about you. I have the highest regard for your intelligence.
It looks like you’ve expanded your comment since I responded.
“Are you sure you aren’t raising a lance at a man made of straw?”
I like that mixed metaphore. 🙂
Perhaps I am…I certainly hope I am. But looking back at the comments if this only a straw man it wasn’t built by me.
Matt (#36),
We (at least the rest of us) are not speaking of some secondary deity with a few minor quirks, we are speaking of a being whose very definition in religious discourse is that he seeks to destroy the work of the one true God. It is slightly more than scandalous that you consider him to occupy a spot on the spectrum of truth and usefulness. Rather he occupies the extreme edge of the spectrum of death, deception, and destruction – the father of all lies, the enemy of all righteousness.
I assert that no one’s testimony is complete until they have a witness of the reality of evil. If you don’t know now, I am afraid the discovery of the world blacker than black will overtake you at your inconvenience.
Matt, where have I said that in the sense of your definition of valid? Indeed haven’t both Geoff and I explicitly stated the opposite? I honestly don’t know anyone who holds the view you are attacking. Yet by your comments in this thread you clearly think some do. Could you refer to some specific lines to illustrate this?
I’m honestly not quite sure what you are looking at. No offense, but it comes across like you had your opinion before and decided to read that into the discussion rather than what was written. That combined with uses of terms most of us aren’t that familar with (and which seem idiocyncratic to me) makes communication rather difficult.
Matt, words are useless unless they mean something coherent to the considerable majority of one’s audience. Why in the world would I want to adopt an idea that consists of nothing more than perverting a perfectly useful word to include an exception contrary to that word’s shared definition. Doing stuff like that just dilutes the semantics of terms until they are insipid and next to meaningless. I favor the opposite program – using terms consistently as possible.
So at the very least if you want to persuade me that all religions, no matter how morally objectionable are F, you need to give a theory of what the predicate F(x) actually is, i.e. what F-ness all x have in common. Generally speaking if you say For all x whatsoever, F(X), I conclude that F-ness is a superfluous property, because every x has it. It is like saying all religions are religions. There is no ‘there’ there – that is a tautology.
In what possible sense of valid can all religions be valid? Legally permissible is the only one I can think of, and somehow I doubt that will last into the eternal world.
Mark, by deriving your interpretation of valid from scripture (and your personal interpretation thereof at that), it is in fact you who renders the word useless except for your own purposes.
Clark wrote:
“Indeed haven’t both Geoff and I explicitly stated the opposite?”
Clark, see Geoff’s comment #7 for the explicit and this post and several of its additional comments for the implicit.
And I don’t think you, Clark, have explicitly made this claim. But you have continued to pursue argument with me over my taking exception with both the implications of this post and the explicit statement that Geoff made in 7.
>Presbyterians from 150 years ago would not recognize their church today, nor would most Episcopalians.
Nor would Mormons. What is your point?
Mark wrote:
“…that is a tautology.”
Yes, Mark. And Clark make this claim as well. But for this to be so, the words ‘valid’, ‘true’, and/or ‘religion’ would have to be redundant. They are not…Mr dictionary man. 😛
>If a Christian church cannot agree that Jesus Christ is Lord, then it is heading down the wrong path.
I am not sure that I understand this argument. Are you saying that if ever there are christological disputes that this is evidence that a church is not true? How do you explain our own history which is full of disputes about the nature, identity, ontology of the godhead? An argument can be made that LDS don’t really consider Jesus Christ the Lord depending on what you mean by Jesus Christ and what you mean by Lord. These sorts of theological discussions don’t seem to me to be evidence of some great failure on the part of churches.
Part of this problem is that we aren’t internal to these conversations so they seem silly, or worse, corrupt to us. How would these people judge the kinds of discussions that we have about whether Christ is married, and if so, to one or more wives; the wickedness of caffiene; and the wearing of beards in the temple? I am not saying that these things don’t matter, only that they matter within a certain internal conversation. The question of Christology in mainline Christianity is one that we are not a party to.
Matt (#54) you’re switching definitions again. To say something isn’t true is not to say there aren’t elements of truth in it nor is it to deny a utility to it. So if you are going to appeal to Geoff in #7 you have to keep to at least your idiosyncratic use of “valid.” I can, for instance, say that Newton’s laws aren’t true, but clearly they have some truth and are useful.
It might, since it seems like most of us are having grave difficulty understanding what you are attempting to say, to both refer to the post you are critiquing and then make explicit your comments. I’m afraid thus far you tend to make generalizations without explaining why you feel your generalization follows. Further the language you use to express these generalizations is sufficiently different from what most of us are used to that it is very, very easy to misunderstand what you are saying. Especially when you by your own admission don’t follow the general dictionary usage.
Any religion that makes it easy to be a “mainline American” is destined for miserable failure. Any religion that steps back and allows people to “do their own thing” is simply forfeiting the fight to the relentless homogenizing pressures of modern culture.
This is why I always get nervous when people start whining about how our Church needs to “get with the program” and abandon some of our “wierder” quirks. American culture is so powerful that it will enslave you the moment you cast off those small, visible reminders of who you are meant to be.
I don’t think we are free to chart our own course and cherry pick what we like and don’t like about our revealed religion. You can either affirmatively choose Zion, or Babylon will have you, whether you affirmatively choose it or not. Cherish the customs that alienate us from our neighbors. They remind us of who we are.
But Seth, any church that completely rejects American culture is also destined for failure. There has to be a balance of both assimilation and exclusivism, as Armaud Mauss argued in The Angel and the Beehive.
Clark, you’ve got my head spinning with this last one. I honestly have no idea what to make of it.
But you’re right about one thing… at this point you and I have no idea what each other is talking about. I’ll take responsibility for my part in it.
Standard English is a wonderful thing.
Matt the whole point you are attempting to make, it seems to me, is simply to argue that both utility and truth are matters of degree. Thus your idiosyncratic use of valid to deal with both. If I understand you right you are attacking Geoff and myself for arguing that “validity” is black and white. (i.e. either a religion is valid or not) However I think everyone posting here agrees that both truth and utility come in degrees with respect to any complex institution.
So the confusion is (a) you are attacking something none of us is arguing for (which is a large part of the confusion) and (b) you are using odd definitions to do so.
In the future, might I suggest that if you use words in a particular way that you give a definition for your use? Further if you are criticizing us for something, rather than just make a broad assertion, give some evidence from our text that we are actually saying what you think we are saying. Both will make conversation much easier.
Thank you, Clark.
I really do appreciate your persistence with me. If what you say is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I have been mistaken. I’ll work in the clarity. 🙂
No Trailer Trash,
We don’t need any sort of “balance.”
Balance is for secularists who are trying to muddle through life solely on their own horsepower.
We need to do what God requires. Period.
I am a big fan of fractional set membership, and fuzzy logic predicates as well, as several here can attest.
And indeed I would say that most things that go by the name of religion have some degree of validity, but certainly not all. Anything predominantly partaking of the spirit of the devil is not only not valid, but rather anti-valid.
Seth, I hate to break it to you, but you have alreay begun to be assimilated.
The notion of a binary between the World and the Gospel is a fictive bedtime story that we tell to children, part romance, part horror, part happy ending. On all but a few important points, it appears to me that we live the exact same lives as our neighbors.
Perhaps I have simply misunderstood your assertion, but I have absolutely no idea how you can claim that we do not currently, nor should we have a “balanced” view with respect to the world outside of Mormonism. Are you listening to the same President Hinckley that I am?
>We need to do what God requires. Period.
Since God doesn’t require that you use a computer, I am not quite sure how you will be able to respond to my questions….
“Part of what I was asking Jeremiah (or anybody) is, if becoming more liberal is to blame for declining numbers among mainline Protestant churches, what is to blame for declining numbers among Mormons? If we’re not accomodating to worldly pressures, but we’re still losing people (or not gaining converts as fast as we used to, at the very least), then why trumpet the notion that accomodation causes decline? “
Ma,am,
did you see my answer in #30?
I’d like to address the issue of Church membership growth brought up by Kristine in #43. Please see this. These numbers correspond to the official Church statistics. You will see that Church growth lately has been slow but steady. My personal opinion is that growth may slow even more in some years, but on the other hand I could be completely wrong and there could be an explosion of Church membership in China or India or Africa. It is true that Church growth has slowed, but to claim that membership is “declining” is simply not true. I tried to find equivalent up-to-date numbers for the Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopal Church, but could not. The article I linked above has some numbers that show steady decline for those congregations since the 1960s.
Geoff,
One thing that the LDS do have an advantage in is the birthrate. Idaho and Utah have the highest birthrates in the country. We have about 100,000 births of record annually in the church. I would wager 50-60% are in the US. I do acknowledge that the LDS birthrate has declined quite a bit since the 1970’s but its still much higher than the country as a whole.
I would further wager that Utah/Idaho has the highest birthrate of any region of the Western Industrialized world.
TT,
To some extent, we’re talking past each other.
But I disagree with you that it’s some sort of “bedtime story.” Unless you consider most of our religion a “bedtime story.”
TT, I think you underestimate how significant those few points actually are, and the precedent they set for much greater changes.
Seth, are we talking past each other b/c I have misunderstood you or b/c we fundamentally disagree? I don’t consider my religion a bedtime story at all! On the contrary! The reason that I object to exaggerated rhetoric about LDS exclusivism is because I take it quite seriously.
Mark, I am not really sure what these scriptures are supposed to demonstrate. What do you think they have to say about the topic of whether or not LDS culture strikes a balance between exclusivism and assimilation?
There have also been conservative religious bodies that have gone into serious decline. Christian Science comes to mind. I’m sure my fellow-bloggers could come up with other examples. Geoff B’s original premise is an over-simplification at best.
#31 There is a difference between responding to social pressure and embracing it, or even creating that pressure.
One persons’s response to social pressure is another person’s revelation from God. Just as few LDS will claim that the fall of polygamy, the priesthood ban, garment lengths, etc are merely responses to social pressure, few “liberal Christians” will claim that their views are merely responses to social pressure. Both believe that they are responding to God’s will revealed to them (and I’m willing to bet that there are more ‘liberal Christians’ who feel this way than LDS). For anyone to go around saying or feeling “Haha! you are responding to social pressure while I am responding to God’ is a bit… ummm… uhhh… I can’t think of the word. Stupid head cold. You know what I mean.
TT, I was responding to the following statement of yours: “On all but a few important points, it appears to me that we live the exact same lives as our neighbors.”
I think that is a relatively dim view of the impact of the gospel on the life of a family that is truly converted. For most of the LDS families I know, their lives practically revolve around religion and religious activities. That is not exactly common in American culture at large.
My second point is to emphasize the eternal and lasting importance of those seemingly small things that distinguish us from many of our neighbors. Whether those scriptures speak to that issue or not is for you to decide.
Greenfrog,
I doubt you’d find any Christian who doesn’t believe in helping the poor or forgiveness. Conduct matters some, of course, even in sins of omission like these, but generally speaking when it comes to the integrity of a church its what the people in it preach that matters. T his is why Christ made a point of telling the Jews to listen to what the Pharisees *said.* I also note that by your own standard Christ may not have been a leader worth listening too, since he did very little for the poor qua poor.
TT,
The dichotomy between Zion and Babylon is one of the central pillars of the scriptural narrative. We have always been admonished by the Lord within that framework.
Admittedly, our lives are complex in this regard. But that’s no reason to be cavalier about rejecting the notion of a hard divide.
Mark, I think that you are measuring the weight of the differences b/t LDS and non-LDS in terms of the symbolic and emotional value of those differences that LDS give to them. I have no intention of denying that these differences are quite important. Indeed, my original statement argued that there is a need for exclusivist practices that distinguish LDS from non-LDS. However, the standard that I am using to meansure the importance of these differences is from the point of view of sociology. Mormons are not different from non-Mormons in the same way that the Amish, punk culture, or Afghani Muslims are different.
Seth, I apologize if you thought I was being cavalier. I felt like you were unnecessarily dismissive and insistant on a point which seemed to me demonstrably wrong, and I think even dangerous. As for the “scriptural narrative” that you point out, it is interesting that there is also a universalist, more open tendency in the scriptures as well (e.g., the notion that Gentiles will be included in God’s kingdom). I take the tension between these two aspects of the scriptures as instructive about how to live our lives within this same tension. I think that only choosing one not only ignores God’s word, but also can impede the progress of the kingdom. …in the world, but not of it, still requires that you live in the world.
Yes, the Gentiles will be included, along with the house of Israel, but if and only if (or when and only when) they repent of their sins and become sanctified before the Lord. No unclean thing shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Listen to the voice of Paul unto the Gentiles:
Adam Greenwood wrote:
I think the questions are harder than you posit, but ok. Still, are the questions really about “integrity”? I thought the questions proposed were supposed to distinguish real Christians from supposedly pseudo-Christians. I agree with James that faith is manifested by conduct. I don’t think that the propensity to reproduce a particular Sunday School’s answer to a question tells us anything about whether a person is a real or a not-so-real follower of Christ.
The questions the journalist proposed seem, to me, rather to be the sorts of questions one would ask if one desired to create a controversy by dividing people who previously had treated one another with a particular degree of trust, based on the assumption of commonalities. The questions provoke questions about whether those commonalities are or are not actual. The questions seem a reasonably good tactic, if one is paid for writing about controversies. Suggesting to people a lack of common ground, without actually exploring whether the resulting differences really matter seems to me destructive of community, rather than productive of anything of value.
It’s not exactly my standard, though I’m flattered that you would suggest such a thing. As to whether we should care more about talk than about walk, recall Matthew 25:31-46:
No reference at all to espousing the right creed or professing a particular article of faith.
Mark, hearken thee unto the words of olde:
I disagree.
In other words, I agree with your general point here, TT, but I disagree with the relevance of my citations from scriptures in regard to the culture of heaven itself, a culture that all, Jew and Gentile alike will need to adopt and incorporate in order to be saved at the last day. The accomodation you are speaking of is temporal. The accomodation I am speaking of is eternal.
I consider that concept more than germane to a discussion of Christian culture, and to the long term efficacy of various adaptations to the regime of the world at large.
Mark, thanks for taking the time to explain your position. I helps me understand what you are actually trying to say. However, I think that the scriptures you are citing are still far from relevent since none of them make the distinction you are pursuing. In fact, they all are talking about temporal life.
Still, the question you raise of an eternal culture is an interesting one. You seem to be implying that there is a single heavenly culture that we must adopt in heaven. It is a nice idea that the whole of God’s people will live within a single culture in which there are no divisions. The downside is that the important cultural differences between people will be erased in favor of the monoculture. Of course, the question of which iteration of the gospel culture this will be is left open, but it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that it is 21st c. American gospel culture, and not 6th. c. BC gospel culture or AD 40 gospel culture or even present-day Taiwanese gospel culture.
I am much more skeptical about this point than you seem to be, primarily because I see culture as all encompassing, much broader than the aspects of the gospel which are essential to salvation. I don’t see the gospel itself (either temporally or eternally) as constituting its own culture in se, but rather as highly transferable and adaptable to all cultures. In this way, I see the possibility of a plurality of “culture” existing simultaneously with an independent identity as membership in the kingdom of God.
Greenfrog,
After Christ died, the major message of the New Testament was the resurrected Christ. It matters a lot if people reject that. As far as we can tell from the scriptures, Christ thought his status mattered to. That’s why he and Judas fell out over whether money should be used to help the poor or to anoint Christ. Far too many congregations have Judases.
We apparently see the message of the New Testament quite differently.
So looking at #37’s response to #32 re false Christianity, are you claiming that an actively gay atheist-and-ex-Mormon who spends all his time volunteering at hospitals and partaking in anti-war rallies (cue the U2 music) is more Christian than a Mormon bishop with a job and meetings to attend, but only spends a few hours a week visting members?
Try again.
TT, You have read an unwarranted dichotomy into my position. A broad cultural unity does not rule out all aspects of cultural diversity, any more than order rules out liberty. Frankly I wish that readers would quit assuming everyone making a straightforward statement still thought in terms of simple, discrete, and static Aristotelian ideals – the same idea of polar essences and natures that failed the early Christologists so thoroughly. That idea was obsolete in Hebrew before Aristotle was born, and in technical philosophy for at least seven hundred years (since Ockham and Abelard).
As far as eternal applicability is concerned, I rest all such cases on D&C 130 verse 2.
It is quite true though that I cannot imagine a civilization without a culture, and by all reasonable accounts celestial civilization is the most enlightened civilization in existence, hence I assume it has a general culture among all its inhabitants without ruling out different familial, ethnic, and national traditions and the like to the degree they are compatible with celestial culture in the large.
From the article and comments, what comes to my mind is this: Stand for something or fall for anything. What seems to me to be part of the problem of liberal Christianity is that it no longer knows what to believe. The guidelines by which one opts to live life are often set by one’s faith/church. When the church claims to have no more set guidelines, the members are left to fend for themselves, and it seems obvious that it no longer makes sense to attend church if no guideline/advise is given.
While the LDS church may not be declining in numbers, the same issue can be a factor for its stagnant growth. I am not saying that the church no longer offers guidance, for that is not true. What I am saying is that I feel many times we don’t focus on Christ as much as we could, and instead focus on neaty gritty stuff. Having suffered inactivity in my life time, I can attest that it does not help for the spiritually starved individual to talk about tithing on Easter Sunday. ‘Ere one more thing I am doing wrong in my life and there is no hope.’
What I am trying to say is this. A religion that understands that its members aren’t perfect and it is there to provide a way by which life can be lived with purpose seems to be a religion that will grow. I don’t know much about other churches, but I know at least a bit about ours. In the end, if the individual does not feel like the church is providing the spiritual guidances he/she needs, he/she will not stick. Can you condemn?
“A society that permits anything will eventually lose everything!” – paraphrased N.A.M.
re: 92 The behavioral conformity bar is set remarkably high in the Church, more than any other Christian group I can think of except perhaps some small, extreme sects. This gets highlighted in bloggernacle strings where people discuss things like whether or not it’s good for western business attire to be the norm for men at church. So many people just blast away in defense of what Luther would have described as adiaphora. Is there such a thing as adiaphora in contemporary, correlated Mormonism? If so, what is it?
There are liberal bodies that are thriving. For example, the Unitarian/Universalists are growing well, from what I’ve read. None of this is meant to dismiss the obvious: Evangelicalism and Pentacostalism are booming in America. My problem is with the over-simplified conclusions that many conservatives draw from this.
re: 94 – By adiaphora, do you mean whether or not there are matters in contemporary Mormonism that are not essential to the faith that bug the members? I think they are, like the one you suggested about business attire for the men. But regardless, I don’t think I expressed my point well for I did not mean that at all.
My concern is with the body of the Church, the members, and the idiosyncrasies that seem to leave Christ and the Spirit out of the equation. As members of such as strong religion sometimes we forget why we are supposed to go to church. We go to church to renew covenants, to testify of Christ, and to be uplifted. We go to church because we are not perfect! Yet, in many a meeting the weak of heart and the spiritually starved are excluded for not-having-served a mission, for not-having a temple recommend, for not-this & that. And on top of that, on testimony meetings we talk about what sister so and so did last week, or how grateful we are to primary, relief society, sister X, brother Y, etc. Where did the testifying of Christ go?
All I am saying is that an individual tends to seek God out of a church. We seek, not to feel good about our doings, but to find hope in that we can become better people and draw closer to Deity. I feel in our church we are as guilty as other churches may be, of not continually helping to find hope and encouragement through Christ.
Again, by no means do I feel our church follows liberal Christianity. By no means am I saying that the Church does not testify of Christ. What I am saying is that we forget why we are there, and often our lack of understanding for those members “less holy than us” leads to a poor retention rate/stagnant growth.