Are We The New Munsterites?

[mormonnewb]

About two years ago, I heard the story of the Anabaptist Rebellion in Munster and I've been fascinated with its parallels to Mormonism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3'>

 

Just as a quick run-down:  A group of Anabaptists flock to Munster in the early 1530s to establish the "New Jerusalem" under the direction of their prophet, Jan Matthys.  They believe that the end is nigh and that Munster will be where Christ makes His triumphant return.  The Anabaptists expel the Catholics and Lutherans and abolish private property, sharing all goods in common.  Needless to say, this doesn't sit well with the Catholics and Lutherans, whose property is now being shared in common, and so they lay siege on the walled city.  During this siege, Matthys is killed by a "mob" of opposing soldiers and he is succeeded by Jan of Leiden.  Jan II institutes polygamy within the community and has himself proclaimed "King of the World" before the city is eventually overtaken in 1535.

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  There are far more dissimilarities between the prophets in Munster and our first two prophets.  The Jans preached violence to achieve their aims and therefore, reaped what they sowed.  JS and BY attempted to bring about the New Jerusalem in a Christ-like manner.  Yet, there is something eerily similar about the devotion of their followers, who were willing to give up home and hearth and even adopt new and strange practices (e.g., communism, polygamy, etc.) solely through faith in the prophetic vision of their leaders.

 

And this faith seemed to come about much like our own spiritual witnesses about this Church.  The Anabaptists reported having dreams, visions and other experiences that made them KNOW that the Jans were true prophets of God.  It makes me wonder how Heavenly Father could let some of His children go so far astray.  After all, I have no reason to believe that these people weren't every bit as sincere as latter-day saints in their desire to know truth.  They prayed, fasted, gave tithes and offerings (and eventually, consecrated ALL of their property to the Lord's work) and yet, they received a spiritual confirmation that turned out to be dead wrong.

 

Where did they go wrong?  Our Catholics brothers and sisters would say that they went wrong by acting contrary to the church fathers.  The Protestants would say that they went against scripture and relied instead on the words of dubious prophets.  But as a church of continuing revelation, how do we distinguish ourselves from the Munsterites?  In hindsight, it seems pretty clear that one would have fared much better as a Mormon, but the early pioneers didn't have the benefit of a two century "winning record."  They had to make many of the same decisions as the Munsterites (e.g., polygamy, consecration, moving to Zion, etc.) solely on the basis of a spiritual witness.

 

So what is it about us Mormons that should give us confidence that our spiritual witness is more reliable than Herman, Lilly, Grandpapa and the other Munsters? (Sorry, but I just couldn't pass that one up)

Edited August 21, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Storm Rider]

Being a student of religious history I can say for a surety that few if any of us understand the spiritual experiences of another.  What makes my spiritual witness more reliable is that I have experienced it; I know it.  This does not discount the spiritual experiences of others, but their relationship with God is just as personal as mine is to me.  As a result I have always respected those experiences and can understand why one would be Catholic by direction from God and one would belong to another religion, denomination, or church.  

 

Our collective confidence is found in the rock of our salvation - our relationship with our Savior and Master.  I do not pretend to understand or know his plan or his manner of accomplishing his plan.  I know that I am responsible for the truths I have been given and leave the rest to God. 

[teddyaware]

About two years ago, I heard the story of the Anabaptist Rebellion in Munster and I've been fascinated with its parallels to Mormonism.

 

 

 

Just as a quick run-down:  A group of Anabaptists flock to Munster in the early 1530s to establish the "New Jerusalem" under the direction of their prophet, Jan Matthys.  They believe that the end is nigh and that Munster will be where Christ makes His triumphant return.  The Anabaptists expel the Catholics and Lutherans and abolish private property, sharing all goods in common.  Needless to say, this doesn't sit well with the Catholics and Lutherans, whose property is now being shared in common, and so they lay siege on the walled city.  During this siege, Matthys is killed by a "mob" of opposing soldiers and he is succeeded by Jan of Leiden.  Jan II institutes polygamy within the community and has himself proclaimed "King of the World" before the city is eventually overtaken in 1535.

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  There are far more dissimilarities between the prophets in Munster and our first two prophets.  The Jans preached violence to achieve their aims and therefore, reaped what they sowed.  JS and BY attempted to bring about the New Jerusalem in a Christ-like manner.  Yet, there is something eerily similar about the devotion of their followers, who were willing to give up home and hearth and even adopt new and strange practices (e.g., communism, polygamy, etc.) solely through faith in the prophetic vision of their leaders.

 

And this faith seemed to come about much like our own spiritual witnesses about this Church.  The Anabaptists reported having dreams, visions and other experiences that made them KNOW that the Jans were true prophets of God.  It makes me wonder how Heavenly Father could let some of His children go so far astray.  After all, I have no reason to believe that these people weren't every bit as sincere as latter-day saints in their desire to know truth.  They prayed, fasted, gave tithes and offerings (and eventually, consecrated ALL of their property to the Lord's work) and yet, they received a spiritual confirmation that turned out to be dead wrong.

 

Where did they go wrong?  Our Catholics brothers and sisters would say that they went wrong by acting contrary to the church fathers.  The Protestants would say that they went against scripture and relied instead on the words of dubious prophets.  But as a church of continuing revelation, how do we distinguish ourselves from the Munsterites?  In hindsight, it seems pretty clear that one would have fared much better as a Mormon, but the early pioneers didn't have the benefit of a two century "winning record."  They had to make many of the same decisions as the Munsterites (e.g., polygamy, consecration, moving to Zion, etc.) solely on the basis of a spiritual witness.

 

So what is it about us Mormons that should give us confidence that our spiritual witness is more reliable than Herman, Lilly, Grandpapa and the other Munsters? (Sorry, but I just couldn't pass that one up)

Among the many reasons why I'm supremely confident is the fact that the LDS religion make perfect sense. If God really is a God of perfect justice, mercy and love, the doctrines of this Church prove it in many marvelous ways. It would be interesting to do a line by line comparison of the doctrines of the Anabaptists and the LDS Church to see how they compare.

[The Nehor]

No, we are not.

[ksfisher]

I want to be a Herman Munsterite!

[volgadon]

I think that Clyde Forsberg pointed out these similarities years and years ago, but at any rate, what if I were to answer that there is no objective solution to your question. "So what is it about us Mormons that should give us confidence that our spiritual witness is more reliable than Herman, Lilly, Grandpapa and the other Munsters? (Sorry, but I just couldn't pass that one up)"

[mormonnewb]

I think that Clyde Forsberg pointed out these similarities years and years ago, but at any rate, what if I were to answer that there is no objective solution to your question. "So what is it about us Mormons that should give us confidence that our spiritual witness is more reliable than Herman, Lilly, Grandpapa and the other Munsters? (Sorry, but I just couldn't pass that one up)"

I would argue (but only with, say, 70% confidence) that the results (or fruit) of Mormonism are a basis for a belief in its "truth." I don't think that this fruit is an argument for our "one true" churchiness, but rather as a church "ordained of God."

I just don't know what gave the early saints their confidence that they were following the right path.

Edited August 23, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just don't know what gave the early saints their confidence that they were following the right path.

 

I guess I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect it's the same thing that gives many of today's Saints their confidence.

[volgadon]

Hamba has it right.

[mormonnewb]

I guess I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect it's the same thing that gives many of today's Saints their confidence.

And that would be what? A spiritual witness of the truth of the restoration?

[readstoomuch]

Seekers, reformers, restorers, visionaries-we are in that mold. We produced scripture which seemed to set us apart from many movements.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And that would be what? A spiritual witness of the truth of the restoration?

 

I think for many that's the very first bit of it. The quiet whisperings of the Spirit form an initial invitation to act. That of course takes faith and a willingness to sacrifice (not just time and goods but often our intellectual arrogance, political preferences, social predilections, assumptions, habits, etc.). Truth-based action bears fruit, evidence that increases faith but also, importantly, invites further communication from the Spirit. Applied over time, this process brings the promised 'fruits of the spirit' -- love, joy, peace, patience, etc. -- as well as the hoped-for miracles: revelations, visions, healings, the ministration of angels, etc. Soon the more 'outrageous' claims of the Restoration become domesticated and familiar -- working consistently, relibably, and predictably in the everyday world. At that point all other conclusions take on a clear sense of unreality.

 

At least that has roughly been my experience.

[AndyDnom]

interesting post. thanks for writing. not sure what this has to do with cheese though.

[mormonnewb]

I think for many that's the very first bit of it. The quiet whisperings of the Spirit form an initial invitation to act. That of course takes faith and a willingness to sacrifice (not just time and goods but often our intellectual arrogance, political preferences, social predilections, assumptions, habits, etc.). Truth-based action bears fruit, evidence that increases faith but also, importantly, invites further communication from the Spirit. Applied over time, this process brings the promised 'fruits of the spirit' -- love, joy, peace, patience, etc. -- as well as the hoped-for miracles: revelations, visions, healings, the ministration of angels, etc. Soon the more 'outrageous' claims of the Restoration become domesticated and familiar -- working consistently, relibably, and predictably in the everyday world. At that point all other conclusions take on a clear sense of unreality.

At least that has roughly been my experience.

Wow! That was the most eloquent argument for following the Church's commandments that I've ever encountered. It makes me give some serious thought to "getting on board with the program."

[Stone holm]

Seekers, reformers, restorers, visionaries-we are in that mold. We produced scripture which seemed to set us apart from many movements.

I wonder about whether we collectively can still make that claim, I think most Christian faiths start out that way, but eventually the need for orthodoxy and conformity snuffs out that flame if the Faith survives long enough to mature.

[BCSpace]

Where did they go wrong?

 

Well, for starters, they abolished private property and misinterpreted "all things in common" to be some sort of communalism, common stock, or holding property in common. Such is explicitly against the official doctrine on the Law of Consecration.

 

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” (Acts 4:32; see also Acts 2:44; 3 Nephi 26:19; 4 Nephi 1:3) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” (History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship.p1?lang=eng

 

[oMtonic]

I think for many that's the very first bit of it. The quiet whisperings of the Spirit form an initial invitation to act. That of course takes faith and a willingness to sacrifice (not just time and goods but often our intellectual arrogance, political preferences, social predilections, assumptions, habits, etc.). Truth-based action bears fruit, evidence that increases faith but also, importantly, invites further communication from the Spirit. Applied over time, this process brings the promised 'fruits of the spirit' -- love, joy, peace, patience, etc. -- as well as the hoped-for miracles: revelations, visions, healings, the ministration of angels, etc. Soon the more 'outrageous' claims of the Restoration become domesticated and familiar -- working consistently, relibably, and predictably in the everyday world. At that point all other conclusions take on a clear sense of unreality.

 

At least that has roughly been my experience.

 

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." -John 7:16-17

[wenglund]

And that would be what? A spiritual witness of the truth of the restoration?

 

I take it that you are asking because you really have no clue--which explains much about your seemingly reluctant and highly tentative "conversion" to the Church.

 

However, in answer to your question, the spiritual witness (Moroni 10) is the seed of faith that is tested, grows, and "proved" through application of Alma 32.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

I take it that you are asking because you really have no clue--which explains much about your seemingly reluctant and highly tentative "conversion" to the Church.

 

However, in answer to your question, the spiritual witness (Moroni 10) is the seed of faith that is tested, grows, and "proved" through application of Alma 32.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Please understand that my conversion is "highly tentative" not due to a lack of spiritual witness, but rather a skepticism of the validity of such witness to determine ultimate "truth" (whatever that means).  Like the Munsterites, I've been horribly wrong in the past.  As a result, I'm reticent to trust MY feelings because I've been burned BY ME in the past.

 

For example, on many Sundays, I will walk into sacrament meeting and feel an almost overpowering wave of love in the midst of my ward family.  As we sing the hymns (which are growing on me) and take the sacrament together, I feel a sense of connection and belonging that gives real meaning to the concept of us all being children of a loving god.  That being said, 15 years ago, I had very similar feelings when I walked into my favorite bar.  And as we sang bad karaoke and took shots together, I had a very tangible "burning in the bosom."  And while today, those past experiences don't seem at all "spiritual," at the time, they were every bit as powerful to me; perhaps more so.  After all, I was willing to literally ingest poison in order to be "in communion" with my compatriots.

 

That's why I'm much more empirically-minded in my middle age.  I look to see how our beliefs and practices are "proving" themselves out in my life.  Now, I will confess that I'm probably a little too impatient in measuring the results so I'm like the person who goes on a diet and then quits because they haven't lost 10 pounds in the first week.  ("Hey, I've been living this WoW for a whole year now and still haven't reached exaltation.  The heck with that!  Where's a Starbucks?")

 

And this is why I keep asking these types of questions.  I'm looking for a shortcut.  Something that will give more confidence that I'm on the right path than simply "it feels right."

[ksfisher]

 

 

For example, on many Sundays, I will walk into sacrament meeting and feel an almost overpowering wave of love in the midst of my ward family.  As we sing the hymns (which are growing on me) and take the sacrament together, I feel a sense of connection and belonging that gives real meaning to the concept of us all being children of a loving god.  That being said, 15 years ago, I had very similar feelings when I walked into my favorite bar.  And as we sang bad karaoke and took shots together, I had a very tangible "burning in the bosom."  And while today, those past experiences don't seem at all "spiritual," at the time, they were every bit as powerful to me; perhaps more so.  After all, I was willing to literally ingest poison in order to be "in communion" with my compatriots.

 

 

The hand that I use to serve others can also be used to hurt another.  But to the hand the sensation feels the same.  I have to observe the fruits of my own actions to determine which is good and which evil.  In the same way the feelings you describe, in sacrament meeting and at a bar, may be the same feelings.  Observe the fruits.  One you describe as poison to your body.  The other, our faith tells us, heals our souls now and leads to life eternal. 

 

All this is explained much better in Alma 32.

Edited August 26, 2014 by ksfisher

[Nemesis]

I take it that you are asking because you really have no clue--which explains much about your seemingly reluctant and highly tentative "conversion" to the Church.

 

However, in answer to your question, the spiritual witness (Moroni 10) is the seed of faith that is tested, grows, and "proved" through application of Alma 32.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Wade we do not allow members of this board to questions others spirtuality or conversion.  Don't do it again.  Since mormonnewb replied I am leaving this note.

 

Nemesis