Should We Lds Really Admire The Reformers?

[boblloyd91]

I recently posted a discussion about similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I recently read an interesting post on Robert Boylan's blog where he quotes Terryl Givens regarding the odd view of LDS revering the Reformers even though the doctrines they espouse are completely antithetical to LDS belief (especially Calvinism). In fact, even though they are seen as heroes, we end up being closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy on certain theological points. I think maybe Mormonism does have some affinity to Wesley's Methodism, however many of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin are considered false by LDS. My question to you fellow board members is this.....do you individually think we have given the Reformers too much praise?

[KevinG]

In the sense that they risked their lives and fortunes in order to bring people closer to God, by the dictates of their own conscience, yes.

Admiration for their faith does not equate to endorsement of their doctrines.

[JLHPROF]

My question to you fellow board members is this.....do you individually think we have given the Reformers too much praise?

 

No.  They led us towards freedom of religious expression without which it would have been very difficult to restore the gospel to the earth.

They got much doctrine wrong, but they frequently paid with their lives so people could believe differently from the majority.

 

I don't give them much credit doctrinally.  But I give them full credit for the paths they opened and the price they paid.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

John Calvin should definitely NOT be honored, I know that for sure. Calvinist theology is a reproach to all things decent.

[KevinG]

John Calvin should definitely NOT be honored, I know that for sure. Calvinist theology is a reproach to all things decent.

You only say that because you aren't predestined for salvation.

[EllenMaksoud]

No.  They led us towards freedom of religious expression without which it would have been very difficult to restore the gospel to the earth.

They got much doctrine wrong, but they frequently paid with their lives so people could believe differently from the majority.

 

I don't give them much credit doctrinally.  But I give them full credit for the paths they opened and the price they paid.

One thing is clear and well documented. Much of what happened to early Mormons was in clear defiance of First Amendment Rights, full stop. Of that I am certain.

 

I've heard very interesting stories from older Saints, about how the power of men in the earlier parts of the 20th century was much less questioned. Of course part of that may have simply been a part of the fabric of American culture then. Remember, women did not get the vote until the 20's, although Utah tried to do that much earlier. My own Mother did not know that she could own property or vote until the 1950's, and my step father took advantage of that.

 

In the last 30 or so years, I believe that Mormons are closer to being on the true path, and so many other denominations are a clown show. Mormons have picked up a societal reproach over their stand on certain social issues. And much to my and other's surprise, it is clear that the Mormons should not back down.

 

I think that a lot of this cringing and worrying about those issues amounts to showing fear before the enemy.

[stemelbow]

not enough, most likely.

[Vance]

You only say that because you aren't predestined for salvation.

And you are only saying that because you are not Michael Servetus. ;)

[halconero]

Sure, I disagree with a number of their doctrines.

 

On the flip side the Reformers pushed for individual study of the Bible, personal revelation, broke the back of Catholic hegemony, and plowed the field wherein the seed of the Restoration could be sown.

 

I don't believe that the Restoration could have occurred in world dominated by a world dominated by the 14th and 15th century Catholic church.

[dberrie2000]

I recently posted a discussion about similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I recently read an interesting post on Robert Boylan's blog where he quotes Terryl Givens regarding the odd view of LDS revering the Reformers even though the doctrines they espouse are completely antithetical to LDS belief (especially Calvinism). In fact, even though they are seen as heroes, we end up being closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy on certain theological points. I think maybe Mormonism does have some affinity to Wesley's Methodism, however many of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin are considered false by LDS. My question to you fellow board members is this.....do you individually think we have given the Reformers too much praise?

 

 Nah--I love Luther:

 

"Moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved..." [emphasis added]

SOURCE: The Large Catechism (XIII) - Martin Luther

[JLHPROF]

 Nah--I love Luther:

 

"Moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved..." [emphasis added]

SOURCE: The Large Catechism (XIII) - Martin Luther

 

Me too - especially when I get to point out that he approved of plural marriage and secretly performed a plural marriage for a nobleman...you should see the looks!

[theplains]

No.  They led us towards freedom of religious expression without which it would have been very difficult to restore the gospel to the earth.

 

Christ's Church grows the most when there is no religious freedom. China is the best

example of this over the last century. The primary example is the New Testament 

Church living under Rome's oppression.

 

Regards,

Jim

[dberrie2000]

Me too - especially when I get to point out that he approved of plural marriage and secretly performed a plural marriage for a nobleman...you should see the looks!

 

 And his live-in mistress?

Edited October 23, 2014 by dberrie2000

[bluebell]

Christ's Church grows the most when there is no religious freedom. China is the best

example of this over the last century. The primary example is the New Testament 

Church living under Rome's oppression.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Rome was usually very very good at letting other religions express themselves.  They really did not care what religion someone was as long as that person didn't rock the boat.  It was the Christian refusal to worship the emperor or the city gods and goddess along with their own version of God that made them so unpopular with the locals.  

 

Not that there weren't a few anti-Christian emperors who were more than willing to help Christians with their desire for martyrdom, but that really had nothing to do with a lack of religious freedom.

[Robert F. Smith]

Without the Reformation there would not have been a Restoration.   The one was preparatory for the other.  My own ancestors were Presbyterian and Methodist ministers and I revere them -- of course they are all now properly endowed and sealed for the exaltation which they deserve.  I can hardly wait to greet them in the courts on high.  What a homecoming that will be!!

[Kenngo1969]

... Remember, women did not get the vote until the 20's, although Utah tried to do that much earlier. ... .

Not to derail the thread, but, yup.

 

That reprobate misogynist, Brigham Young, no less, tried to give women the right to vote.  Alas, the feds took it away when they realized that women were too stupid to realize the gift they had been given, and failed to use the vote to outlaw polygyny on their own.

 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/womenssuffrageinutah.html

[Kenngo1969]

I don't have much to add with respect to the topic of the thread, except to say that I agree with others (Prophets and Apostles among them, conveniently ) who feel that the Reformation paved the way for the Restoration.

[3DOP]

I recently posted a discussion about similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I recently read an interesting post on Robert Boylan's blog where he quotes Terryl Givens regarding the odd view of LDS revering the Reformers even though the doctrines they espouse are completely antithetical to LDS belief (especially Calvinism). In fact, even though they are seen as heroes, we end up being closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy on certain theological points. I think maybe Mormonism does have some affinity to Wesley's Methodism, however many of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin are considered false by LDS. My question to you fellow board members is this.....do you individually think we have given the Reformers too much praise?

 

Take a look at the new thread about the so-called "New Perspective in Paul" which is little less than an acceptance of the fact by Evangelicals that Luther was wrong. I am sorry that his blunder wasn't recognized for almost 500 years, and resulted in wars, stake burnings on both sides, confusion, the Mayflower Compact, more wars, and all kinds of disruption in a social order that has led to an atheistic approach to civil life in 2014, three years short of 500 since Luther's famous posting of his theses, but better late than never I guess.

 

Surely, if a Restoration was necessary, such a deplorable vehicle as Luther and Calvin's now discredited (by Evangelicals who accept "the new perspective on Paul") revolt from Rome was not necessary for such a glorious event. I could never believe in a Restoration that depended on such a "Reformation."

Edited October 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

No.  They led us towards freedom of religious expression without which it would have been very difficult to restore the gospel to the earth.

They got much doctrine wrong, but they frequently paid with their lives so people could believe differently from the majority.

 

I don't give them much credit doctrinally.  But I give them full credit for the paths they opened and the price they paid.

 

You will I hope, forgive a demurrer from one who is quite obviously invested. It doesn't seem to me that the Reformers had any more idea of modern views of religious liberty (which I continue to reject) than did the Catholic Church. The movement was heavily fueled in England by allowing nobles to plunder wealthy church lands and monasteries without allowing religious liberty at all, which is what brought the English Puritans to America. I don't know the German history so well. It confuses me because there seemed to have been so many little principalities and dukedoms that I don't know who was who. But there were wars that lasted a long time, and not merely because the sola fideists were always on the defense. In France and Switzerland we all know how tolerant the Calvinists were. 

 

The Reformers would have all thought it expedient to be rid of your Prophet, by death if necessary, and squelching his prophecies. To praise the Reformers for religious liberty is like praising Hurricane Katrina for a rebuilt New Orleans. The Reformers had religious liberty on their minds about as much as Katrina had anything in mind. Not at all. Since LDS seem fond of religious liberty as currently understood and accepted in the West, I would acknowledge that a break with Rome was necessary for that to happen, but praise? If I were LDS, I would think it out of place considering that the Reformers immediately adopted practices of religious intolerance that were not any more liberating than anything that had preceded.

Edited October 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

I recently posted a discussion about similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I recently read an interesting post on Robert Boylan's blog where he quotes Terryl Givens regarding the odd view of LDS revering the Reformers even though the doctrines they espouse are completely antithetical to LDS belief (especially Calvinism). In fact, even though they are seen as heroes, we end up being closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy on certain theological points. I think maybe Mormonism does have some affinity to Wesley's Methodism, however many of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin are considered false by LDS. My question to you fellow board members is this.....do you individually think we have given the Reformers too much praise?

Absolutely, but all the founders of our faith were Protestant and already prejudiced in favor of Protestants.

 

They were human

[JLHPROF]

You will I hope, forgive a demurrer from one who is quite obviously invested. It doesn't seem to me that the Reformers had any more idea of modern views of religious liberty (which I continue to reject) than did the Catholic Church. The movement was heavily fueled in England by allowing nobles to plunder wealthy church lands and monasteries without allowing religious liberty at all, which is what brought the English Puritans to America. I don't know the German history so well. It confuses me because there seemed to have been so many little principalities and dukedoms that I don't know who was who. But there were wars that lasted a long time, and not merely because the sola fideists were always on the defense. In France and Switzerland we all know how tolerant the Calvinists were. 

 

The Reformers would have all thought it expedient to be rid of your Prophet, by death if necessary, and squelching his prophecies. To praise the Reformers for religious liberty is like praising Hurricane Katrina for a rebuilt New Orleans. The Reformers had religious liberty on their minds about as much as Katrina had anything in mind. Not at all. Since LDS seem fond of religious liberty as currently understood and accepted in the West, I would acknowledge that a break with Rome was necessary for that to happen, but praise? If I were LDS, I would think it out of place considering that the Reformers immediately adopted practices of religious intolerance that were not any more liberating than anything that had preceded.

 

It is not religious liberty that the reformers provided for.  It was religious choice.  Basically they provided the alternative to the dictator.  In many cases as you pointed out they were just as intolerant and violent, but regardless, they ended the monopoly.

 

And once a monopoly is toppled, choice is the unavoidable end result, even if EVERY choice wants to eliminate our ability to do so.

[volgadon]

You will I hope, forgive a demurrer from one who is quite obviously invested. It doesn't seem to me that the Reformers had any more idea of modern views of religious liberty (which I continue to reject) than did the Catholic Church. The movement was heavily fueled in England by allowing nobles to plunder wealthy church lands and monasteries without allowing religious liberty at all, which is what brought the English Puritans to America. I don't know the German history so well. It confuses me because there seemed to have been so many little principalities and dukedoms that I don't know who was who. But there were wars that lasted a long time, and not merely because the sola fideists were always on the defense. In France and Switzerland we all know how tolerant the Calvinists were. 

 

The Reformers would have all thought it expedient to be rid of your Prophet, by death if necessary, and squelching his prophecies. To praise the Reformers for religious liberty is like praising Hurricane Katrina for a rebuilt New Orleans. The Reformers had religious liberty on their minds about as much as Katrina had anything in mind. Not at all. Since LDS seem fond of religious liberty as currently understood and accepted in the West, I would acknowledge that a break with Rome was necessary for that to happen, but praise? If I were LDS, I would think it out of place considering that the Reformers immediately adopted practices of religious intolerance that were not any more liberating than anything that had preceded.

 

Rory, it is great to have you participate in such threads, and you raise some pertinent points. I agree that the reformers were not seeking modern religious liberty. I don't think that anyone at the time was, not least because religion defined public and private spheres of existence. Even if you were impious, your religion was an integral part of your identity, and by extension, the character and well-being of the community. This is what makes the Servetus affair understandable from an historical POV. I think that if nothing else, the proliferation of new religions (when before you might have seen Jews, and maybe a rarer Muslim) forced a practical paradigm shift which led to the modern notions of individual and religious liberty, among others. There were still other, more conceptual shifts, but I think that once new faiths proved resilient and large enough to resist being easily stamped out, people had to rethink civil attitudes. This, more or less, is what I understood you to be saying.  

[volgadon]

It is not religious liberty that the reformers provided for.  It was religious choice.  Basically they provided the alternative to the dictator.  In many cases as you pointed out they were just as intolerant and violent, but regardless, they ended the monopoly.

 

And once a monopoly is toppled, choice is the unavoidable end result, even if EVERY choice wants to eliminate our ability to do so.

 

There were other choices before Luther. They might not have been as numerous, but they were still out there.

[3DOP]

It is not religious liberty that the reformers provided for.  It was religious choice.  Basically they provided the alternative to the dictator.  In many cases as you pointed out they were just as intolerant and violent, but regardless, they ended the monopoly.

 

And once a monopoly is toppled, choice is the unavoidable end result, even if EVERY choice wants to eliminate our ability to do so.

 

Hi JLH.

 

Are you a professor at JLH? You don't have to answer that. (If you do admit to being such a professor, what is JLH?)

 

Anyway, I am only speaking to the question raised by boblloyd. Should LDS praise the Reformers? In my opinion, you would find less intolerance with Traditional Catholics than you would with the Reformers. You would be loved.

 

That is not to say that if I were king, I would allow non-Catholics, on principle, to propagate their beliefs. It would be a question of the greater good. Under certain circumstances, I would suppress public proclamation of what I believed to be false religious teachings. But with God as my witness, I believe good Catholics, including those at the time of the so-called Reform, have always loved those who were separated from the Church. If we suppress from any motive but love, Hell is our just reward.

 

I am totally committed to the principle that in matters of faith, freedom of the will is essential. Faith cannot be coerced. On the other hand, I reject the idea that this means that error can possibly have any rights. It is not necessary that every claim receive equal time.

 

I know this runs entirely counter to modern political theory. But for the sake of confessing my truest and sincere beliefs to you all, I am saying that while faith cannot be coerced, that does not imply that the conscience has to be exposed to every false idea. Taking the Old Testament for a model, I hold that it is sometimes an obligation of a state composed of followers of the one faith and the true God, to enact laws that disable the abilities of heretical sects to propagate false religion. 

 

I do not expect to gain any of my much desired reputation points for this confession. But I am confident that what I say represents the constant and unflinching view of the Catholic Church in the face of modern political reforms that has no basis in anybody's Bible, but rather comes from ungodly philosophies critical of your Christianity and mine which were already rampant in the 17th and 18th Centuries.

 

In my opinion, the fruit of modern religious liberty is freedom for pornography and abortion on demand, while a Christ hating society turns its angry eye against Christians who would claim there is any kind of permanent, universal morality that stems from continuity with Scripture or our forefathers in the faith.

 

Thanks for your tolerance of my "intolerant" points of view JLH, and to all who have given my post some thought. God love you all.

 

Rory

Edited October 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

You will I hope, forgive a demurrer from one who is quite obviously invested. It doesn't seem to me that the Reformers had any more idea of modern views of religious liberty (which I continue to reject) than did the Catholic Church. The movement was heavily fueled in England by allowing nobles to plunder wealthy church lands and monasteries without allowing religious liberty at all, which is what brought the English Puritans to America.

....................................................................................................

It is not religious liberty that the reformers provided for.  It was religious choice.  Basically they provided the alternative to the dictator.  In many cases as you pointed out they were just as intolerant and violent, but regardless, they ended the monopoly.

 

And once a monopoly is toppled, choice is the unavoidable end result, even if EVERY choice wants to eliminate our ability to do so.

These are important points, certainly, but the real reason the Calvinistic Puritans fled to the American colonies was their desire for Restoration, and this was at the root of the LDS Restoration as well.  That and covenant theology were of prime importance to both Puritans and the LDS.  See James C. Spalding, “"Restitution as a Normative Factor for Puritan Dissent," JAAR, 44 (1976):47-63.  Of course restoration or restitution of the primitive church was also a prime objective of the Hussites, Waldensians, Campbellites, and many others.  Only the Mormons were able to bring it to fruition.

 

Religious liberty was part of the new U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights).  Yet, during most of the 19th century, both Mormons and Roman Catholics were treated as though the 1st Amendment did not exist.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith