Weak Spots in Mormon Theology

[smac97]

At the outset, let me say that I find LDS theology to hold together and be more internally consistent than other forms of Christianity with which I am familiar.

Nevertheless, there do appear to be some "weak spots."

By "weak spots," I mean beliefs that do not seem to jibe well with the rest of the picture, and which give (to me, at least) indication of having been created after the fact to "fill in the holes."

...

Then there is the "weak spot" involving the difference between the Light of Christ (given to every person), and the Holy Ghost, which is divided up into The Influence of the Holy Ghost (which everybody may receive prior to baptism, but only insofar as it testifies of the Book of Mormon and leads a person to baptism), and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (which is defined as the right to have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion).

All of these differences and "tweaking" of concepts seems the result of attempts to harmonize "conflicting" authorities, as well as to flesh out the LDS Plan of Salvation.

You characterize the "Light of Christ" as an innovation "created after the fact to 'fill in the holds'" in LDS theology.

Funny that you arrive at this characterization one day after this article gets published:

Ancient manuscript appears to be account of Magi's journey

January 6th, 2011 @ 10:00pm

By Carole Mikita

SALT LAKE CITY -- For most Christians, Jan. 6 is known as Epiphany -- the day when the Magi or the three wise men found the Christ child.

Now Brent Landau, a religion professor at the University of Oklahoma, has translated an ancient text from the Vatican Library into English. Scholars are calling it fascinating.

The Gospel of Matthew says very little about the group we call the three kings who visited the Christ child. They are a mystery, and growing up, Landau was always fascinated by them and the star of Bethlehem. While studying for his doctorate in theology at Harvard, he traveled to Italy.

"Basically, when I was looking for a dissertation topic, I had gone on a study trip to Italy and was really blown away with how much the wise men were showing up in all sorts of different artistic representations: mosaics, sarcophagi, catacombs, paintings all over the place," he said.

"And so when I got back to Harvard, I started trying to investigate to see if there were any texts, perhaps, written about the wise men that just hadn't received much attention and came across a rather obscure article that mentioned this quite obscure text and gave a summary of it. And it sounded absolutely fascinating."

The ancient manuscript was in the Vatican Library. He had just finished learning ancient Syriac, a language similar to Aramaic, which Jesus Christ may have spoken, so he was able to translate it into English and it became the book "Revelation of the Magi."

Here's the book's cover:

Here's the interesting part:

The story is a first-hand account of their journey. But the most surprising point is when Christ speaks to them.

Landau wrote, "So Christ, being a divine being, is able to appear as a star, that's how he first appears to the wise men, and then transforms himself into a luminous kind of, a glowing, talking infant."

"This is what Christ says to the Magi when he appears," Landau said. He called this the smoking gun.

He said the most important passage of the text was: "And I am everywhere because I am a ray of light, whose light has shown in this world from the majesty of my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries and to accomplish the commandment by my glorious Father, who by the prophets preached about me to the contentious house in the same way as for you as befits your faith, it was revealed to you about me."

In other words, the journey of faith is not simply about taking gifts to worship Christ. It is about the gifts of knowledge that Christ gives to them.

...

"The fact that this text is really being studied for the first time at the beginning of the 21st century, when we live in a global village, where you meet people of different religions," he added, "the fact that this text actually has something very interesting and very unique to say in terms of Christianity's relationship with other religions ... I think it's a lot of food for thought, theologically speaking."

Daniel C. Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic at BYU, was also fascinated by the words of the Christ child.

He said, "It talks about him having revealed himself to all nations. That in some form or another, they've all known and that is extremely striking."

Peterson said the text contains many ideas that Latter-day Saints will relate to. Landau agreed, mentioning the faith in his introduction:

I am surprised that you would disparage the doctrine of the Light of Christ in this way. I've never seen it as an after-the-fact fabrication. It seems to be a well-established concept, both in LDS thought and - based on the article above - in broader Christian circles.

Other examples occur to me, but I am wondering whether anybody else believes in the existence of "weak spots" in LDS Theology, and if so, what some of those might be.

I don't think there are "weak spots" in LDS doctrine. I think there are "weak spots" in our grasp of LDS doctrine (which, I suppose, we could characterize as "LDS theology").

For example, I think that polygamy is a difficult concept. But if there's a "weak spot" pertaining to polygamy, it exists with me, with my perceptions, not the with the doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BookofMormonLuvr]

A "particular interpretation"??

That's good.

And let me take a wild guess whose "particular interpretation" you've chosen to believe - assuming you sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as General Authorities.

No, the Bible says "He that HATH the Son HATH eternal life."

I believe "He that HATH the Son HATH eternal life."

I couldn't say this and truly mean it as an LDS Christian.

Actually, if you have followed at all my little foray into MADB boards you would know I am a former "Mormon" myself (though I still know the Book of Mormon is a true record) and that I disagree with the LDS Church on a number of theological issues. One thing I will NOT do, however, is question the love the members of the LDS church have for the Savior Jesus Christ and use my mortal-man judgment to consign them to Hell for having a different interpretation of scripture then I do.

[SilverKnight]

Does everyone choose to beleive the truth?

Do you mean:

Does every mormon who reads the bible uncritically become an evangelical christian?

No.

The vast majority remain LDS.

Some lose faith entirely and become atheist.

Some abandon their LDS faith and become a Mainstream Christian.

[FormerLDS]

Hmm, interesting. So one must reject Mormonism because of its rejection of clear, easy to define doctrine that even a blind man can see and a deaf man can hear.

Now, out of these plain as day doctrines, I have heard many mainstream Christians say that works are not necessary for salvation, but OTOH, I have heard many mainstream Christians say that they are important and that one cannot be saved without good works. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

I have hear from many mainstream Christians that once one is saved, one is always saved, the old OASA doctrine, but I have also heard from other mainstream Christians that this is a false doctrine, that it is not taught in the Bible. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

I have heard many mainstream Christians say that on must confess the name of Christ in this life in order to be saved and yet I have heard many mainstream Christians say that this is hogwash, because little children can't do it and what about those who never heard about Christ, are they damned to an eternity of suffering in Hell because they never heard about Christ. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

I have heard many mainstream Christians say that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and the complete word of God, but I have also heard many mainstream Christians say that the Bible isn't inerrant nor infallible, and that they have serious reservations about it being the complete word of God. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

I have no clue what a "mainstream Christian" believes.

All I know is the Bible, read plainly, has only one true answer to each of life's questions, and I have found those answers are completely different than what I believed and taught as a Latter-day Christian.

[FormerLDS]

Why? Do you have a speech impediment or don't you know how to speak English?

As an LDS Christian, I can not only say it, but I can mean it completely, probably more completely than you.

Do you have any clue what LDS "Eternal Life" even is?

[urroner]

I have no clue what a "mainstream Christian" believes.

All I know is the Bible, read plainly, has only one true answer to each of life's questions, and I have found those answers are completely different than what I believed and taught as a Latter-day Christian.

So, you are basically judging us upon you own interpretation of the Bible? Interesting. Reading what you just said has caused me to remember 2 Peter 1:20.

Added: BTW, nice of you to avoid answering the question of why there are so many different interpretation of the Bible by Christians if the Bible is so easy to interpret?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have no clue what a "mainstream Christian" believes.

All I know is the Bible, read plainly, has only one true answer to each of life's questions, and I have found those answers are completely different than what I believed and taught as a Latter-day Christian.

I have a sneaking suspicion that your "plain reading" of the Bible is different then the "plain reading" of the Bible of your fellow Bible-Only Believers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Once, when I was on splits we met an elderly lady in her doorstep. She very coridally, yet dogmatically told us "The Bible does not agree with LDS theology."

Sweet I heard that a lot, unlike you had a read the bible before and was very able to defend the faith. Many times the person just slameed the door. Now what? BTW I love soom good lunch time entertainment.

Perhaps these words resonated with questions I had been having (my own weakness perhaps??), but I began to seriously compare what the Bible plainly said with what I believed as a Latter-day Christian.

So what you are saying is that you had never once read the bible until then? Wow.

I'm here to tell you that indeed the Bible simply does not agree with LDS theology. As a Latter-day Christian, if you feel that it does then:

Are you sure. God is a man. The bible tells us this. You reject what is plainly taught.

A) You have misunderstood what the Bible plainly says.

Or perhaps it is you that mis-understands the what the bible plainly says. Actually that is the problem the bible really is not all that clear.

B) You do not understand LDS theology.

Or perhaps it is you that does not understand LDS theology. I understand it quite well. I am willing to bet I understand it more than you do.

Regardless, reading the Bible with no preconceived (LDS) meaning, can change your mind, your life, your beliefs and your eternal destination.

I never had a preconceived (LDS) meaning when reading the bible. See, I let the bible interpret it's self.

I truly wish this were not so friends...

No you don't. Not that what you say is true anyway.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you have any clue what LDS "Eternal Life" even is?

NO, thankfully you can tell us.

[urroner]

Do you have any clue what LDS "Eternal Life" even is?

I have a clue, do you? If you don't, go here: http://lds.org/study/topics/eternal-life?lang=eng

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have no clue what a "mainstream Christian" believes.

All I know is the Bible, read plainly, has only one true answer to each of life's questions,

Really?

Tell me, were did we come from, why are we here, and were are we going, accourding to the plain reading of the bible?

and I have found those answers are completely different than what I believed and taught as a Latter-day Christian.

You must be reading a different bible than me.

[smac97]

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is right of members of the Church to his constant presence if we so live by the spirit.

And not to pile on, TSS, but where on earth does this idea come from?

It is mentioned nowhere in the scriptures, but is repeated so frequently in the Church today, one would think it were a cardinal tenet.

This is one indication it is a "weak spot" . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is "mentioned nowhere in the scriptures?"

What about the Fourth Article of Faith? Doctrine & Covenants 138:33? Acts 2:38? Moses 6: 52? Acts 5:32? Acts 10:45? 1 Ne. 10:17? 1 Ne. 13:37? 2 Ne. 31:12? Alma 9:21? D&C 20:26? D&C 33:15? D&C 35:6? D&C 39:23? D&C 49:14? D&C 68:25? D&C 76:116? D&C 121:26? D&C 138:33? Moses 5:58?

Lots of scriptures specifically reference the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" (or some similar designation). So TSS got that right.

These scriptures repeatedly state that this "gift" is given to members of the Church by the laying on of hands. See, e.g., D&C 20:43; D&C 33:15; D&C 35:6; D&C 39:23; D&C 49:14; D&C 55:1; D&C 68:25; Moses 6:52. So TSS got that right, too.

These scriptures also state that this "gift" is given to us to be our "constant companion." D&C 121:46. So TSS got that right as well.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is in the Fourth Article of Faith. It's in the sacramental prayers (found the scriptures) which are recited every week in tens of thousands of LDS congregations. And yet here you snarkily suggest that it is not a "cardinal tenet" of our faith.

-Smac

[urroner]

I have no clue what a "mainstream Christian" believes.

All I know is the Bible, read plainly, has only one true answer to each of life's questions, and I have found those answers are completely different than what I believed and taught as a Latter-day Christian.

BTW, since you are so knowledgeable in the Bible and its plain truths, which version of the Bible are you using? Would these plain truths be any different if you were to study another version of the Bible?

The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible is used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which is considered to be a Christian religion, but it doesn't have some of the books that the KJV has and it also has some books, particularly the Book of Enoch, that the KJV doesn't have. Can it be considered to be a true Bible then?

[maupayman]

At the outset, let me say that I find LDS theology to hold together and be more internally consistent than other forms of Christianity with which I am familiar.

Nevertheless, there do appear to be some "weak spots."

By "weak spots," I mean beliefs that do not seem to jibe well with the rest of the picture, and which give (to me, at least) indication of having been created after the fact to "fill in the holes."

One such area involves the Holy Ghost, which seems in the Lectures on Faith to have been a substance (definitely not a third person in the Godhead), and then in Nauvoo becomes a personage of spirit, and then even later on after Joseph Smith's passing, the Holy Ghost comes to be defined as the personage of spirit and the Holy Spirit is defined as the ubiquitous spirit substance.

Then there is the "weak spot" involving the difference between the Light of Christ (given to every person), and the Holy Ghost, which is divided up into The Influence of the Holy Ghost (which everybody may receive prior to baptism, but only insofar as it testifies of the Book of Mormon and leads a person to baptism), and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (which is defined as the right to have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion).

All of these differences and "tweaking" of concepts seems the result of attempts to harmonize "conflicting" authorities, as well as to flesh out the LDS Plan of Salvation.

Other examples occur to me, but I am wondering whether anybody else believes in the existence of "weak spots" in LDS Theology, and if so, what some of those might be.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I agree Consig, that the holy ghost is a weak spot. As per my other thread, about the hg, nobody seems to be able to give a clear explanation as to what the differences are between the power and gift of the holy ghost. Also, it appears that there is very little, spiritually, that occurs exclusively among LDS. These feelings and experiences seem to be pervasive among all groups of people.

[SilverKnight]

Also, it appears that there is very little, spiritually, that occurs exclusively among LDS. These feelings and experiences seem to be pervasive among all groups of people.

This is not a problem for LDS theology exclusively.

It's a problem for religions that believe in divine communication in general.

[Kevin Christensen]

I agree Consig, that the holy ghost is a weak spot. As per my other thread, about the hg, nobody seems to be able to give a clear explanation as to what the differences are between the power and gift of the holy ghost. Also, it appears that there is very little, spiritually, that occurs exclusively among LDS. These feelings and experiences seem to be pervasive among all groups of people.

Since the LDS scriptures make no claims for exclusivity of spiritual experience to LDS, indeed, quite the opposite, the Book of Mormon even claiming that "God remembers the heathen" that "God is mindful of every people" and gives unto all "of their own nation and tongue, all that he seeth fit that they should have," that the "light of Christ is unto all men," I don't see this as a weakness. Rather, a strength. My Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience essay at the Meridian, the one with the recently broken links on my profile, makes this case. Even D&C 1 is expressly non-exclusive, saying that God is no respecter of persons and is willing to makes things known unto all flesh.

Mormon thinkers and critics often quite effectively create weakness by inappropriately claiming exclusive truth or virtue or revelation. Anomaly, Kuhn observes, emerges against a background of expectation, which means that the kinds of things that people complain about also provides useful information about their expectations. "more precise and far-reaching a paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence an occasion for paradigm change." (Kuhn Structure, 65.) Those who view LDS thought as perfect, static, rigid, and final, have the potential to see more weakness than those who recognize the inherent human weakness spelled out in D&C 1. That is, it makes a difference whether one sees weakness as structural or human, and it also makes a difference whether one assumes that their perception and judgement of weakness is not subject to human limitations.

Also, those who claim that anything a Mormon does or says is necessarily, exclusively, and binding Mormon thought are also to define what typically turns out to be human and cultural weakness as something that defines Mormons. The complaints about the Mormon doctrine of the curse of Cain is telling example. See Stirling Adamn's review of Haynes "Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of Slavery.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7582

The supposed Mormon doctrine had a long history before it got to the early Mormons, but, it turns out, not a history that goes back to when the key passages were first written. And that makes the doctrine a problem for Western Culture, not a peculiarly Mormon issue. At least for those who read enough to make come to that perception. Those who decide before reading that far will, of course, view the responsibility differently.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ElfLord]

Smacs Magi Book Cover.

Why do the three wise men look like ZZTop?!

The guy on the left looks like he's wearing sun glasses.

[zerinus]

At the outset, let me say that I find LDS theology to hold together and be more internally consistent than other forms of Christianity with which I am familiar.

Nevertheless, there do appear to be some "weak spots."

By "weak spots," I mean beliefs that do not seem to jibe well with the rest of the picture, and which give (to me, at least) indication of having been created after the fact to "fill in the holes."

One such area involves the Holy Ghost, which seems in the Lectures on Faith to have been a substance (definitely not a third person in the Godhead), and then in Nauvoo becomes a personage of spirit, and then even later on after Joseph Smith's passing, the Holy Ghost comes to be defined as the personage of spirit and the Holy Spirit is defined as the ubiquitous spirit substance.

Then there is the "weak spot" involving the difference between the Light of Christ (given to every person), and the Holy Ghost, which is divided up into The Influence of the Holy Ghost (which everybody may receive prior to baptism, but only insofar as it testifies of the Book of Mormon and leads a person to baptism), and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (which is defined as the right to have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion).

All of these differences and "tweaking" of concepts seems the result of attempts to harmonize "conflicting" authorities, as well as to flesh out the LDS Plan of Salvation.

Other examples occur to me, but I am wondering whether anybody else believes in the existence of "weak spots" in LDS Theology, and if so, what some of those might be.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

There are bound to be

[zerinus]

And not to pile on, TSS, but where on earth does this idea come from?

It is mentioned nowhere in the scriptures, but is repeated so frequently in the Church today, one would think it were a cardinal tenet.

This is one indication it is a "weak spot" . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

D&C 121

:

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

[Libs]

The severely mentally handicapped pose a problem for all religions. Some born with severe Down Syndrome can do nothing more than lie on the bed and drool. On my mission we did service at a state facility for these people. It is hard to see the purpose in life for a man with no brain above the stem or a girl who can only make involuntary noises out of both her mouths.

Could be these are already enlightened souls who have come here to teach us about love and compassion...and service to others. That may be their purpose.

[Libs]

My view of organized religion is changing. All religions have flaws and weaknesses, but any system that helps bring us closer to God, has some worth. Better to focus on the strengths and what it is about the organization that "does it's job", in bringing us closer to God, and ignoring the weaker parts.

If the you come to believe the weaknesses outnumber the strengths, and the system no longer works for you, it's time to leave.

[Gervin]

Mormon thinkers and critics often quite effectively create weakness by inappropriately claiming exclusive truth or virtue or revelation.

I agree; any EV-type who is not claiming the exclusive truth of the One that called himself Truth is simply creating a weakness by drawing himself to himself.

[Gervin]

Since the LDS scriptures make no claims for exclusivity of spiritual experience to LDS, indeed, quite the opposite, the Book of Mormon even claiming that "God remembers the heathen" that "God is mindful of every people" and gives unto all "of their own nation and tongue, all that he seeth fit that they should have," that the "light of Christ is unto all men," I don't see this as a weakness. Rather, a strength.

I don't think an EV (ecce homo) would have a problem with the spirit (sry) of your nonexclusive passages but; compared to Christ's claim there is a hierarchy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Could be these are already enlightened souls who have come here to teach us about love and compassion...and service to others. That may be their purpose.

I agree. I think that is indeed their main purpose.

Why does a 32 year old father of 2 die of brain cancer when the kids are 4 and 1 and need their dad?

I had to think long and hard about this one. IT is a sad thing that happened until I realise another aspect to the story that taught a powerful life lesson.

[FormerLDS]

Actually, if you have followed at all my little foray into MADB boards you would know I am a former "Mormon" myself (though I still know the Book of Mormon is a true record) and that I disagree with the LDS Church on a number of theological issues. One thing I will NOT do, however, is question the love the members of the LDS church have for the Savior Jesus Christ and use my mortal-man judgment to consign them to Hell for having a different interpretation of scripture then I do.

Are you suggestion the rejected of the savior in Matthew chapter 7 did not love Jesus Christ?

I mean, really?