Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_Daniel Peterson]

OK, but I assume that you would agree that belief in a Trinity, however formulated, is nonessential. Belief in a Godhead including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is what you (and I assume most other Mormons) would consider the essential aspect. Agree?

Belief in a Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) -- three distinct persons, united in some very real sense (but not in the ontological sense characteristic of Nicene Christendom) -- is essential to Mormonism. Whether or not it can be called a "Trinity" is merely a terminological issue, almost a matter of taste.

I believe that it can be said some Latter Day Saints experience
God as ineffable -- or at least not easily described in human language.
In tension with this experience is the need to encounter God as
immanent and personal -- as a Father or as a Son.

For those Saints (at least) God the Almighty is transcendent and
God incarnate is the "Son." Somehow the two polarities merge in
Jesus, who is essentially "Father," but in communion with humankind
is known personally as "Son."

That leaves the "Spirit of God," which, according to the Hebrew
Bible, is neither Father nor Son, but is the power and presence
of the former (and, in Christian terms, the abiding presence of
the latter).

At least that is what I was taught -- and what best expresses
my own relationship with Divinity. I'm quite happy to sit in the
benches in the meetinghouse on Sunday morning, next to
communicants whose descriptions of God are rather different.

I'm trying to express what I take to be the mainstream view of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I don't want to be rude, but, for clarity's sake and with all due respect, I have to point out that Dale is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and, unless I'm mistaken, has never been one. His view is not that of the members of my church, and should not muddy the waters here. Otherwise, it's as if a Catholic were asked to outline her beliefs, and a Methodist responded with an outline of his own.

DCP is incorrect in this case.

I don't agree.

And, once again, I hope that nobody will confuse what I say with what others say here, and that I will not be held accountable for what others say. I'm expressing myself with considerable care, and don't want what I say to be confused with the opinions of others. The question with which the opening post begins was asked of me, personally, and I'm attempting to answer it.

By the same definition FAIR used to use on it's board (and may still somewhere), the LDS Church has a systematic theology.

In the standard sense of the term systematic theology, and as that term is used in theological schools, we do not. A "systematic theology" is either (a) a specific subdiscipline cultivated in or around divinity schools or (b) something that somebody produces (e.g., Barth's Church Dogmatics, Calvin's Institutes, Bloesch's Christian Foundations, or, for that matter, any number of works bearing the actual title Systematic Theology -- such as those of Pannenberg, Jenson, Berkhof, Hodge, Van Til, etc.), by systematizing canonical and other authoritative statements.

To say that Mormonism lacks a "systematic theology" is not to say that its doctrines are incoherent or not susceptible to systematizing, but merely to acknowledge that we do not cultivate the academic discipline of "systematic theology" (we don't even have divinity schools!) and have not produced works expressive of that discipline (though Blake Ostler's brilliant multi-volume Exploring Mormon Thought represents a major step in that direction, which some have welcomed and others have lamented).

[_Uncle Dale]

...
has never been one
...

Grew up with them -- was taught by them -- hardly knew anybody
else but them until I was a teenager. But my own believer's immersion
was administered among the followers of Joseph Smith III.

I suppose that my ancestors were called Mormons and were in
proper fellowship with Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, etc., until
1852, at least. No doubt a few of my ancestral family (such as
Lucy Mack Smith) actually called themselves "Mormons."

The closest I ever came to such fellowship was in 1978 when
Spencer W. Kimball addressed me as "Brother Broadhurst"
(not long after joining in prayer with Wallace Smith in Missouri).

I believe I know enough about the fundamental Mormon claims
of the 1820s and 1830s to add a few words to this conversation:
and probably enough about those of the 1840s to at least know
when I'm hearing a misrepresentation.

Can only a Mohican articulate the fundamentals of that tribe?

UD

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can only a Mohican articulate the fundamentals of that tribe?

Well, all I can say, as a Mohican who was making a serious attempt to articulate the fundamentals of Mohicanism, is that what you wrote, above, is distinctly foreign to my beliefs (though I won't deny that there are some areas of overlap, and certain vague family resemblances) and unlike those that I've ever heard from any Mohican in my considerable experience with and among them and as one of the tribe.

I'm simply trying to keep other voices, and particularly non-Mormon voices, distinct from mine on this thread. I've been asked to describe the fundamentals of Mormonism. I am not responsible for the Mormonism that others (and particularly non-Mormons) describe. I'll answer for what I wrote (and write) here.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I'm simply trying to keep other voices, and particularly non-Mormon voices, distinct from mine on this thread.
...

No problem with that. In fact, it sounds fully reasonable to me.

One of the shared fundamentals of our ancestors in the Church
was the tenet of common consent. It may have existed in other
denominations back in 1830, but I think a case could be made for
Latter Day Saint uniqueness in that regard.

I would also like to think that our respective profession of such
principles echoes that of the Former Day Saints, whose religion
our fore-bearers said they were re-announcing after a lapse of
several centuries.

UD

[_thews]

Several of us have argued that modern notions of a "social Trinity" among certain Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians are coming closer to the Mormon view, and that the Mormon conception can be described as a form of "social Trinitarianism."

Are you claiming Catholic, and Orthodox theologians are the ones moving towards a more Mormon viewpoint? Who would "us" be in the above?

Certain claims are essential. For example, that there is a God, that he has a divine Son (known to us as Jesus Christ), and that, with the Holy Ghost, these three form a Godhead or, even, a Trinity.

Where does Satan fit into your "trinity"? Isn't Satan the brother of Jesus in Mormon theology? In Christianity, Jesus is God in man. In Mormonism, Jesus and God are two distinct personages. How about the planet Kolob? Which part of the Mormon trinity lives on Kolob?

That they are in human form. That salvation is available through, and only through, Jesus Christ, who took mortality upon himself, was crucified, rose physically from the dead, and, in some incomprehensible way, atoned for our sins as well as for the transgression of Adam.

You state in the next paragraph that Brigham Young was also a prophet. Do you believe that Adam was God?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine

The Adam–God doctrine (also called the Adam–God theory) was the most prominent of several theologies taught within mid-19th century Mormonism, and is part of the modern theology of Mormon fundamentalism. Introduced by Mormon leader Brigham Young in the 1850s, the Adam–God doctrine teaches that Adam is both the common ancestor and the father of spirits for all people who are born on this earth. According to the doctrine, Adam was once a mortal man who became resurrected and exalted. From another planet, Adam brought Eve, one of his wives, with him to the earth, where they became mortal by eating the fruit of the Garden of Eden. After bearing mortal children and establishing the human race, they returned to their heavenly thrones where Adam serves as the god of this world. Later, as Young is generally understood to have taught, Adam returned to the earth to become the literal father of Jesus.

That we -- all of us -- will live beyond the grave (as we lived before birth), and that, thanks to Christ, we too will be resurrected. That we will be judged by God, and assigned to some level or other of glorious salvation (or, in the case of some, to a state of no glory whatever). That the destiny of the righteous is to receive all that God has, and to be "gods." That God called Joseph Smith to be a prophet, and, through the angel Moroni, revealed the Book of Mormon. That unique priesthood authority was restored by John the Baptist; by Peter, James, and John; and, subsequently, by other ancient prophets in the Kirtland Temple. That Joseph Smith established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under divine mandate, and that the fullness of the saving ordinances is available in, and only in, that church. That the reception of temple ordinances is necessary for the highest mode of salvation. That the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price constitute the "standard works" or canonical scriptures of the Church. That Joseph Smith's successors are apostles and prophets, and that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are prophets, seers, and revelators.

You failed to mention the Book of Abraham. Do you reject the Book of Abraham?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you claiming Catholic, and Orthodox theologians are the ones moving towards a more Mormon viewpoint?

I'm claiming that certain Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians hold positions on the nature of the Trinity that come closer to the LDS viewpoint than does mainstream Nicene Trinitarianism.

Who would "us" be in the above?

Off hand, it would include me, Blake Ostler, and David Paulsen. Perhaps a few others.

Where does Satan fit into your "trinity"?

Pretty much the way Satan fits into the mainstream Nicene Trinity: Not at all.

Isn't Satan the brother of Jesus in Mormon theology?

In antemortal terms, yes.

In most forms of Christianity (including Mormonism), Jesus is God in man. In Mormonism, Jesus and God are two distinct personages.

I'll rephrase your sentence to express my viewpoint: In Christianity, Jesus is God in man. In the Mormon variant of Christianity, more specifically (unlike almost all other variants), God the Father and God the Son, though they live in perfect unity, are two distinct beings.

How about the planet Kolob? Which part of the Mormon trinity lives on Kolob?

Scripturally, it seems that no part of the Godhead lives on Kolob. See Abraham 3:9.

Do you believe that Adam was God?

I don't rule it out. See my brief comment about "Adam-God" above.

You failed to mention the Book of Abraham. Do you reject the Book of Abraham?

I mentioned the Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Abraham is part of the Pearl of Great Price.

I also failed to mention the book of Obadiah and the epistle of Jude. But I declared my belief in the Bible, which includes the epistle of Jude and the book of Obadiah.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Interesting post, Dan. The biggest question this raises for me is this: If these are the "fundamental" claims of Mormonism, how can LDS apologetics be said to be defending them? How, for example, is Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic" a defense of the things you listed? How is your editorial on Signature Books (i.e., "Questions to Legal Answers")? What about the attack piece on "Fun For Family Night," or Greg Smith's review of Rod Meldrum's work? You say above that the location of Book of Mormon events is not "fundamental," and yet you oversaw and published an article devoted to attacking another LDS for holding that position. How, in your view, do all of these things add up to a defense of "fundamental Mormon claims"?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
the location of Book of Mormon events is not "fundamental,"
...

There may be a certain logic to that sort of reasoning, if Mormons
profess their organization to be a continuation of the followers of
Jesus from some 1900 years past --- and, if no new fundamentals
can properly be added to those held by the original disciples.

So far as I can discern, Jesus the son of Mary never preached to
his followers that the location of events in preColumbian America
was "fundamental" to the great Plan of Salvation.

If, on the other hand, the Mormons are willing and able to append
sundry new "fundamentals" to that 1900-year-old doctrine, then
I suppose my comments here are moot.

UD

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think your comments are moot, at least from a Latter-day Saint perspective. There is no guarantee, and certainly no fundamental doctrine, that important new doctrines can't be revealed. Quite the opposite.

As far as defenses of fundamental doctrines go, the simple fact that an argument is being made, or that a defense is being mounted, doesn't, in and of itself, demonstrate that the subject of the argument or the item being defended is fundamental to Mormonism. One might well argue that Professor X's argument regarding the reception-date of Doctrine and Covenants NNN is mistaken (or valid), without regarding the issue as fundamental. One might defend a bridge, or destroy a bridge, not because the bridge itself is of fundamental intrinsic importance but because it is an important entry-point to Y. One might simply want to express one's opinion, or to clarify something. There are any number of subjects that might be deemed worth writing about without their being fundamental. Not every disagreement is a war for survival between the forces of Good and Evil.

[_Uncle Dale]

I think your comments are moot, at least from a Latter-day Saint perspective. There is no guarantee, and certainly no fundamental doctrine, that important new doctrines can't be revealed. Quite the opposite.

As far as defenses of fundamental doctrines go, the simple fact that an argument is being made, or that a defense is being mounted, doesn't, in and of itself, demonstrate that the subject of the argument or the item being defended is fundamental to Mormonism. One might well argue that Professor X's argument regarding the reception-date of Doctrine and Covenants NNN is mistaken (or valid), without regarding the issue as fundamental. One might defend a bridge, or destroy a bridge, not because the bridge itself is of fundamental intrinsic importance but because it is an important entry-point to Y. One might simply want to express one's opinion, or to clarify something. There are any number of subjects that might be deemed worth writing about without their being fundamental. Not every disagreement is a war for survival between the forces of Good and Evil.

Perhaps the time has come to define what a "fundamental" is
(as in "fundamental claim") and how that definition compares
with "policy," "practice," or transitory "doctrine," subject to change.

I may well be wrong in thinking that the "fundamentals" of
Latter Day Saint religion were all in place 1900 years ago, and
that supplementary teachings arising since that "meridian of
time" are just that -- supplements based upon the fundamentals.

Or -- can we properly profess that the religion lived out and
manifested in Jesus lacked "fundamentals" added by the LDS?

UD