Will Mormonism move toward orthodoxy?

[Krusader]

I've spent many years in the field of apologetics, and in all that time there is only one group which has shifted from a full-blown cult to modified orthodoxy, and that is the Worldwide Church of God. Although some of their doctrines are heterodox, the church now teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and justification by faith apart from works.

A similar move in the SDA sect a few years ago by some pastors, disclosed that their prophetess, White, had plagarized other authors. Some SDA churches have moved more toward orthodoxy.

I've always had a feeling that there is a movement within the LDS Church by some to move the Church closer to orthodox positions on the godhead, salvation, etc. Of course, at the present time, it would appear that the old guard controls the brethren - but they will die off in time.

Mormonism has demonstrated that it can discard doctrines and shift positions. The Reorganized Church is Mormon in name only, with many in that group giving only lip-service to the BOM (some see it as a parable).

Some Mormons posting here don't seem to toe the line on traditional Mormon teaching - which to me is evidence that change is not impossible.

Comments?

[Sparko]

I pray this is the case. But before mormons could enter the pale of orthodoxy, wouldn't they have to abandon the whole BoM?

[Conductor42]

Changes in any group are always possible. After all, that is how Protestants started, is it not?

[Krusader]

Protestantism was a biblical reformation of a belief system which had been corrupted by anti-biblical teaching. The same cannot be said of Mormonism, which is a belief system which pretended to reform, but in fact, introduced teachings that were totally contrary to the received faith.

[Bill the Cat]

I have dealt with both types and will describe the ones I have encountered (Not inclusive of all LDS). The scholarly type seem to lean more towards orthodoxy in relations to salvation by grace thru faith, but on most issues, they avoid detailed discussion. On the other shoe are the pew sitters who are ignorant to the scholarly side. They typically just spout the rhetoric they are force fed in Gospel Doctrine class.

[Krusader]

I have dealt with both types and will describe the ones I have encountered (Not inclusive of all LDS). The scholarly type seem to lean more towards orthodoxy in relations to salvation by grace thru faith, but on most issues, they avoid detailed discussion. On the other shoe are the pew sitters who are ignorant to the scholarly side. They typically just spout the rhetoric they are force fed in Gospel Doctrine class.
I've encountered the following LDS types:

1. Real Christians who have been seduced by missionaries and are unaware of the LDS position on polytheism and salvation by works. Usually these are people with a Baptist or evangelical background who are biblically illiterate and theologically unaware. They couldn't defend the Trinity if their lives depended on it - mostly due to poor teaching in the evangelical community. (I'm a Baptist, so I can pick on them). Some will end up leaving when they discover the true doctrines of the LDS, or remain in the LDS and still cling to their evangelical beliefs.

2. TBM - true blue Mormons who are culturally bound to Mormonism, accept the bizarre teachings of Smith regarding polytheism, priesthood, salvation by works, etc. They have little knowledge of the Bible, and make excellent missionaries. These are usually the ones knocking at our doors.

3. Intellectual Mormons: these Mormons are aware of the strange teachings of Mormonism, but generally are selective about which ones they accept. They are also culturally bound to Mormonism, but many have discarded belief in the additional revelations of Mormonism, or have a very loose interpretation of those revelations. They will attempt to circumvent the historical teachings of Mormonism by extreme modification and mental gymnastics. Some of these intellectual Mormons eventually leave or stop attending church....especially after going through the Temple. Some may become evangelical Christian believers, sometimes secretly.

4. Cultural, but unbelieving Mormons: These Mormons, often called Jack-Mormons, are simply caught up in the cultural scenario of Mormonism, but long ago abandoned any belief in the LDS Gospel. They also have no other spiritual inclinations. They are still counted on the membership rolls of the LDS, giving inflated numbers to that reported total. I've encountered many of the Jacks personally, and have found that they are often able to share amusing stories about Mormonism.

[just Johnna]

...I've always had a feeling that there is a movement within the LDS Church by some to move the Church closer to orthodox positions on the godhead, salvation, etc...

Comments?

Hi Crusader, I came across an article commenting on this topic: Re-Imagining Elohim, Rethinking Mormon Doctrine (http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_walker.htm) by James K. Walker

Many of the unique Latter-day Saint concepts of the nature of God - including their beliefs in the plurality of Gods, the corporeal nature of Elohim (the Heavenly Father), his mortal pre-exalted nature, and his offspring’s potential for deification - are concepts that developed early in Mormon philosophy. Most were formulated within the lifetime of its founder, Joseph Smith. Early documents, including Mormon Scripture, during its foundational first decade the Church initially began with a somewhat more orthodox theology, much closer that of its Protestant milieu. After postulating and rejecting several transitional models, the LDS leaders established and promoted a doctrine of God that found its maturation and zenith in the middle to late 20th century. There are signs that this classic Mormon theology of the last century is being questioned or challenged by Latter-day Saints on several fronts. There are indications that the Mormon doctrine of God may be transitioning. For the 21st century, a growing number of Latter-day Saints may be in the process of Re-imagining[1] Elohim.[2]

ELOHIM: EARLY 19th CENTURY MORMON TEACHINGS

The earliest source for Mormon Christology would be the Book of Mormon itself. It was being prepared for publication well before the Church was organized in 1830.[3] Rather than teaching that Elohim (God the Heavenly Father) was once a man who progressed to Godhood, the Book of Mormon teaches a very strict Monotheism. Book of Mormon hero Amulek, who can, “. . . say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord.” is asked, “Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.” King Zeezrom later reminds the people, “. . . See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God,” (Alma 11: 22-35).

<snips>

Apparently, as Mormon theology developed, the distinctions between the Father and Son were clarified.

<snips>

TRANSITIONAL CHRISTOLOGICAL MODELS

Between the Christology of the Book of Mormon and the classic LDS Christology of the 20th century, several positions were taken that could be described as experimental, temporary, or transitional. ....Also, the lecture makes a sharp distinction between the Elohim and Jesus concerning physical natures. The Father is described as a “personage of Spirit” in contrast with the Son who is said to be a “personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man.”[13]

The obvious clash between this view of the Godhead and later statements by Joseph Smith himself has been offered as a possible explanation for the Lectures on Faith eventual removal from post 1921 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

.... Did the 1921 change in the Doctrine and Covenants reflect an earlier re-imagining of Elohim? A strong case can be made for this hypothesis.

ELOHIM IS ADAM - THE ADAM-GOD THEORY

By the death of Joseph Smith in June of 1844, all of the basic elements of theological thought found in 20th century Mormon thought were extant - albeit some in more primitive forms.[16] By 1852, a radically re-imagining of Elohim was put forth by the Prophet Brigham Young who taught on numerous occasions that “Adam was our God and the only God with whom we have to do.” ....
<snip> ....A controversial teaching even in its day, the Adam-God issue a point of contention between Young and one of his Apostles, Orson Pratt, who found the doctrine difficult to accept.[18]

After the death of Young, the church gradually de-emphasized and later strongly discouraged the Adam-God teaching. Boyd Kirkland describes the theological rethinking subsequent shift from the transitional theological models towards 20th century LDS orthodoxy.

Between Brigham Young’s death and the turn of the century, a mixture of all of the previously discussed theological positions circulated within the Church causing much conflict and confusion. To achieve some semblance of harmony between these widely varying ideas, as well as to quell external attacks from anti-Mormon critics at the “Adam-God” doctrine, Mormon leaders carefully reformulated Mormon theology around the turn of the century and articulated it in 1916. These adjustments remained as the current doctrine of the Church today.[19]

While it is no longer taught by the Church, the Adam-God doctrine is still finds adherents in certain splinter groups[20] and occasionally among isolated pockets of Latter-day Saints. As late as 1976, Prophet Spencer W. Kimball felt the issue still needed to be addressed. He publicly denounced the Adam-God teaching as a heresy from the Church’s official magazine:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.[21]

Young’s Adam God doctrine was a fleeting theology that was never complete embraced by the church. Young’s later successor, Lorenzo Snow, coined a couplet that captured the essences of Mormon theology of the 19th and 20 centuries. It became quite possibly the most famous two-line quote in Latter-day Saint culture. Snow’s couplet became to many Latter-day Saints what John 3:16 is to evangelicals - an elegant summary of the gospel in a simple statement.

As man now is, God once was;

as God now is, man may be.[22]

Latter-day Saint apologist Stephen E. Robinson, of Brigham Young University concedes the authoritative nature of Snow’s famous couplet. While not actually LDS scripture, Snow’s couplet is “… so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that this technical point has become moot.”[23]

ELOHIM: 20th CENTURY MAINSTREAM MORMON THEOLOGY

Eventually Brigham Young’s theory waned and Snow’s couplet captured the imagination of Latter-day Saints for many generations. In the aftermath of the Adam-God theology, a new and significant doctrinal direction developed that culminated in mainstream Mormon theology of the last century. Some difficulty arises in nominating the proper spokesperson to expound the 20th century Mormon theology concerning the nature of God. Perhaps some of the best, authoritative examples of traditional LDS orthodoxy of the mid-to-late 1900s are the voluminous works of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who was an Apostle of the Church until his death in 1985. At his death, the L.D.S. Church News, an official newspaper of the Church, spoke of McConkie’s practice of addressing important theological issues in a number of popular books....

For the purpose of establishing a representative LDS theology of the mid-to-late 20th century, perhaps no other source could serve as a better example of Mormon orthodoxy than the works of Elder McConkie.....

Some may question the use of McConkie as a paradigm of mainstream LDS theology of the last century preferring instead the “Standard Works” (i.e., the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) as the real source of Mormon theology. This approach fails to appreciate distinctions made by systematic theology between two religious bodies using the same source of authoritative literature (i.e., the doctrinal distinctions between two Protestant denominations that use the Bible as their sole source of theology).

....Some Latter-day Saints would argue that they are life-long Mormons and their theology has always been very different than that of McConkie. One Mormon writes of McConkie’s book, “Thankfully, Mormon Doctrine is not Mormon doctrine, no matter how many times it is cited in sacrament meeting.”[25]

Rather than developing a more orthodox Trinitarian view of the Godhead, 20th century Mormonism continued to expound on doctrine developed in the final years of Joseph Smith’s life. McConkie’s eschews Mormonism’s original position of strict Monotheism during the 1830s and embraces at a unity of three different Gods. More than a revival of sixth century Tritheism,[27] McConkie’s view was based on the widespread LDS teaching that the universe is populated by many Gods. He further elaborated:

To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] are the only Gods we worship. But in addition [to theses three] there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.[28]

<snips>

cConkie edited the three volume work, Doctrines of Salvation, which was a compilation of the sermons and writings of his father-in-law who was the tenth President and Prophet of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith. In this work is found a brief description of the dilemma:

CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF HOLY GHOST. I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He taught this doctrine to his disciples. He did not teach them that he was the Son of the Holy Ghost.[35]

<snipped a few paragraphs for brevity>

ELOHIM: MOVING TOWARDS THE 21st CENTURY

During the last two decades of the 20th century the theology of the LDS Hierarchy began to show some evidence of change. Unlike early changes, this doctrinal shift is not coming mainly by way of new revelation or authoritative declaration. While the LDS principle of continuing revelation could provide the mechanism for such a transition, this transformation is facilitated by what could be called the “New Doctrinal Emphasis.” In recent years many of the doctrinal distinctives and fundamental building blocks of traditional LDS metaphysics characteristic the last century have been significantly downplayed. Many of the unique LDS theological teachings which characterized the 20th century are seeing little emphasis, are rarely showcased or publicly promoted. Although it has not yet been retracted or renounced, the teaching that Christ was sired physically by the Father and not begotten of the Holy Ghost may already be slated for removal. Other remaining LDS theological distinctives may follow as well. But they probably will not die the quick death of public repudiation but the slow death of de-emphasis.

This New Doctrinal Emphasis is also reflected in (or perhaps amplified by) a parallel reemphasis in the proselytizing methodologies of the Church. This shift avoids focusing potential converts on the unique doctrinal differences of Mormonism’s “restored gospel” compared that of Protestant or Catholic dogma. From their television commercials and Temple Square Visitor Center, to the content of the missionary discussions, the LDS hierarchy of recent decades is clearly softening its militant claims of yesteryear. The First Vision account was until recent decades a major theme for visitors to Temple square in Salt Lake City. It was at the First Vision that Joseph Smith learned that all other churches were apostate and whose creeds were seen to be divinely condemned as “abominable.”[42] It is no longer stressed that converts must abandon the abominable doctrines of their traditional Christianity in order to re-image God in light of the First Vision.

This new (and successful) approach seems to minimize the major doctrinal differences focusing instead on the promotion of family relationships, moral values, and addressing human emotional needs. Thus, new converts may join the Church without ever rejecting the “creeds” and Christology of their background as they were expected to in past generations. As a result, a significant percentage of the two million new members who have joined the Church in the last decade may carry into the Church their traditional Christian theologies (i.e., Protestant and Catholic). As this trend gains momentum, the result may strongly influence Mormon theology in the early 21st century. Among converts and new members, we could see a more eclectic theology emerge consisting of a confluence of LDS beliefs of the 1900s and traditional Christian theologies. This and other theological influences may tend to further divide mainstream LDS doctrine of past generations with Mormon thinking in the new millennium.

MORMON NEO-ORTHODOXY

Another development in Mormon thought has evolved from earlier roots to emerge in the late 1970’s among the LDS intellectual community. It has been described by some as Mormon Neo-orthodoxy. It has received momentum from a number of interdisciplinary forces including women’s studies, anthropology, archaeology, biology, genetics,[43] and historical studies. The later is represented by a new wave of LDS historians who use modern historical methods to do “honest history” that separates the Joseph Smith of history from the Joseph Smith of faith. By demythologizing much of the historical account, they have stripped away its accompanying Mormon dogma. While in most cases still considering themselves to be loyal Latter-day Saints, they are attempting to put a new authenticity and life into the Church structure. This new approach to LDS studies often results in diverse philosophies. For example some Latter-day Saints eventually conclude that the Book of Mormon is “true” but not historical. They would view the story of the Book of Mormon much like an extended parable. God may speak to you though the pages of the book, but there never were Nephites or Lamanites living in the Americas.

Often, liberal Mormon thinkers wish to celebrate the social benefits of the Church as “a great place to raise your kids.” At the same time they may, however, reject the official accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, discount scriptural claims to LDS exclusivity, and minimize Snow’s couplet. They usually would not view the Prophet’s teachings as infallible - perhaps not even helpful.

But surprisingly in some cases, new Mormon studies may also result in a theology more similar to traditional Protestant beliefs. 0. Kendall White, Jr. writes:

The explosion of historical scholarship in Mormon studies during the past two decades has disclosed the essential Protestant flavor of the earliest Mormon beliefs and has provided an authentic foundation for Mormon neo-orthodox theology.

Much like the earliest Mormon converts, the latest neo-orthodox theologians rely primarily upon the Book of Mormon, not the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision, for their doctrines of deity, human nature, and salvation. This emphasis on the Book of Mormon reinforces a trinitarian and absolute God, while a preoccupation with the first vision, a trademark of twentieth-century Mormonism, encourages a tritheistic and anthropocentric God.[44]

He elaborates on this obvious deviation from the Mormon norm and its prominent parallel to Protestant Christology saying:

Though these new Mormon theologians seem less concerned with the concept of God than with the doctrines of human nature and salvation, their position on the classical attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence is evident. A preoccupation with Christ’s perfection and divine justice naturally follows from an emphasis on human failure and the gift of grace.[45]

This liberal development in theology, LDS Neo-Orthodoxy, represents the first substantial shift in belief structure to develop from below (the Church members) and not from above (the Church leadership) and yet remain within (the Church structure). All previous positions that vocally or publicly deviated from the norm have done so from without. In the past, some were ex-communicated against their wishes for expressing far less conflicting views while others left under their own initiative to form rival churches.[46]

The future of LDS Neo-orthodoxy and its unique Christology rests in the uncertainty of the post-Hinckley era. For the last two decades, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor to the Prophet, has been without question the most influential human in the hierarchy of the Church. .... In a post-Hinckley era of glasnost, the new theologies could actually be encouraged as viable expressions of faith within the Mormon establishment. The Church has certainly survived (and even benefited from) more difficult changes in the past (i.e., polygamy and the Black/Priesthood issue).

However, LDS neo-orthodoxy may ultimately fall under its own weight. Its theology is not firmly grounded in Mormon revelation, hierarchal infallibility, or an evangelical view of biblical authority - although its language is sometimes couched in the rhetoric of all three. It may be philosophically difficult to maintain the doctrines of the Reformation without the principle of sola Scriptura which gave birth to them.

ELOHIM: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GORDON B. HINCKLEY

It could be argued that the neo-orthodox movement within the LDS Church only affects a handful of Mormon liberals whose influence is inconsequential and whose loyalties are suspect. Is the nature of God being recast by other, more mainstream Mormons? Are there others besides the liberals re-imagining Elohim?

A perceivable theological shift in recent years can also be documented from the LDS Prophet himself. In a San Francisco Chronicle interview published in 1997, President Gordon B. Hinckley, Prophet, Seer, Revelator and world leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commented on Snow’s famous couplet, which for so long embodied the essence of the LDS doctrine of God. Hinckley was asked to comment on Snow’s couplet as compared with traditional Christian beliefs:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man? A: [Hinckley] I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.[48]

One would not want to read too much into an off-the-cuff response to a reporter’s enquiry....Perhaps Hinckley’s statement was more about public relations than it was about systematic theology but one should not quickly dismiss the possibility of a genuine reevaluation on the part of Mormon leaders.

It is interesting that he did not claim that Latter-day Saints never believed it - only that he “wouldn’t say that” and that “we don’t know very much about” it.

Very significantly, later in the same interview, Hinckley had no reservations about confirming the second half of Snow’s couplet. “Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this? A: [Hinckley] Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.”[50]

In a PBS program aired the same year reporter Richard Ostling, coauthor of Mormon America: The Power and the Promise commented on this intentional shift in emphasis:

President Gordon Hinckley says the concept of God having been a man is not stressed any longer, but he does believe that human beings can become gods in the afterlife. Hinckley stated: ‘Well, they can achieve to a godly status, yes, of course they can, eternal progression. We believe in the progression of the human soul. … We believe in the eternity and the infinity of the human soul, and its great possibilities.’[51]

Portions of the Hinckley interview were published in Time magazine. Concerning the idea of God having once been a man,

At first Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that ‘it's of course an idea. It's a hope for a wishful thing,’ but later affirmed that ‘yes, of course they can.’… On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.’[52]

Evidence of this same reemphasis can be found in the writings of recent Mormon apologists. In his book Are Mormons Christian,[55] Stephen Robinson make a valiant effort to support the second half of Snow’s couplet (human deification) arguing that the belief is evident in the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers.[56] But having quoted Snow, he attempted no defense of Snow’s first statement - that God was once a man.[57]



CONCLUSION

Are Latter-day Saints re-imagining Elohim? Theologians and students of Mormon Studies who are in dialogue with Latter-day Saints should remember that “God” may mean something very different to one Latter-day Saint than to another. What Latter-day General Authorities have taught for decades past does not necessarily translate into the pew. Converts to the church, unaware of 150-years of LDS dogma, often import their own, traditional theologies into the ward.[58] Liberal Latter-day Saint may be very aware of LDS dogma but not feel any necessity to comply. Even the Prophet himself seems intent on moving beyond some aspects of the doctrines of his predecessors.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the motives for change or the social or political factors that may precede them....Historically, however, within its highest leadership, the church’s theology has also experienced internal criticism and pressures to re-imagine its teachings about the nature of God.[59] It is difficult to determine whether this latest apparent shift is largely cosmetic, to affect public perception,[60] or if Hinckley is intending to truly influence his people to think about God differently.[61] Either way, this could be a noteworthy development in Mormon studies.

When engaging in religious dialogue with Latter-day Saints, it should be remembered that there is no a unified Mormon theology of God. While this has always been the case, it is probably truer in the early 21st century than in decades past. Evangelicals wishing to inform, influence, or critique LDS concepts of God should consider a relational approach with care given to define concepts like “deity” and terms like “Elohim” or “Heavenly Father.”

<snipped rest>

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader, I came across an article commenting on this topic: Re-Imagining Elohim, Rethinking Mormon Doctrine (http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_walker.htm) by James K. Walker

Many of the unique Latter-day Saint concepts of the nature of God - including their beliefs in the plurality of Gods, the corporeal nature of Elohim (the Heavenly Father), his mortal pre-exalted nature, and his offspring’s potential for deification - are concepts that developed early in Mormon philosophy. Most were formulated within the lifetime of its founder, Joseph Smith. Early documents, including Mormon Scripture, during its foundational first decade the Church initially began with a somewhat more orthodox theology, much closer that of its Protestant milieu. After postulating and rejecting several transitional models, the LDS leaders established and promoted a doctrine of God that found its maturation and zenith in the middle to late 20th century. There are signs that this classic Mormon theology of the last century is being questioned or challenged by Latter-day Saints on several fronts. There are indications that the Mormon doctrine of God may be transitioning. For the 21st century, a growing number of Latter-day Saints may be in the process of Re-imagining[1] Elohim.[2]

ELOHIM: EARLY 19th CENTURY MORMON TEACHINGS

The earliest source for Mormon Christology would be the Book of Mormon itself. It was being prepared for publication well before the Church was organized in 1830.[3] Rather than teaching that Elohim (God the Heavenly Father) was once a man who progressed to Godhood, the Book of Mormon teaches a very strict Monotheism. Book of Mormon hero Amulek, who can, “. . . say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord.” is asked, “Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.” King Zeezrom later reminds the people, “. . . See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God,” (Alma 11: 22-35).

<snips>

Apparently, as Mormon theology developed, the distinctions between the Father and Son were clarified.

<snips>

TRANSITIONAL CHRISTOLOGICAL MODELS

Between the Christology of the Book of Mormon and the classic LDS Christology of the 20th century, several positions were taken that could be described as experimental, temporary, or transitional. ....Also, the lecture makes a sharp distinction between the Elohim and Jesus concerning physical natures. The Father is described as a “personage of Spirit” in contrast with the Son who is said to be a “personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man.”[13]

The obvious clash between this view of the Godhead and later statements by Joseph Smith himself has been offered as a possible explanation for the Lectures on Faith eventual removal from post 1921 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

.... Did the 1921 change in the Doctrine and Covenants reflect an earlier re-imagining of Elohim? A strong case can be made for this hypothesis.

ELOHIM IS ADAM - THE ADAM-GOD THEORY

By the death of Joseph Smith in June of 1844, all of the basic elements of theological thought found in 20th century Mormon thought were extant - albeit some in more primitive forms.[16] By 1852, a radically re-imagining of Elohim was put forth by the Prophet Brigham Young who taught on numerous occasions that “Adam was our God and the only God with whom we have to do.” ....
<snip> ....A controversial teaching even in its day, the Adam-God issue a point of contention between Young and one of his Apostles, Orson Pratt, who found the doctrine difficult to accept.[18]

After the death of Young, the church gradually de-emphasized and later strongly discouraged the Adam-God teaching. Boyd Kirkland describes the theological rethinking subsequent shift from the transitional theological models towards 20th century LDS orthodoxy.

Between Brigham Young’s death and the turn of the century, a mixture of all of the previously discussed theological positions circulated within the Church causing much conflict and confusion. To achieve some semblance of harmony between these widely varying ideas, as well as to quell external attacks from anti-Mormon critics at the “Adam-God” doctrine, Mormon leaders carefully reformulated Mormon theology around the turn of the century and articulated it in 1916. These adjustments remained as the current doctrine of the Church today.[19]

While it is no longer taught by the Church, the Adam-God doctrine is still finds adherents in certain splinter groups[20] and occasionally among isolated pockets of Latter-day Saints. As late as 1976, Prophet Spencer W. Kimball felt the issue still needed to be addressed. He publicly denounced the Adam-God teaching as a heresy from the Church’s official magazine:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.[21]

Young’s Adam God doctrine was a fleeting theology that was never complete embraced by the church. Young’s later successor, Lorenzo Snow, coined a couplet that captured the essences of Mormon theology of the 19th and 20 centuries. It became quite possibly the most famous two-line quote in Latter-day Saint culture. Snow’s couplet became to many Latter-day Saints what John 3:16 is to evangelicals - an elegant summary of the gospel in a simple statement.

As man now is, God once was;

as God now is, man may be.[22]

Latter-day Saint apologist Stephen E. Robinson, of Brigham Young University concedes the authoritative nature of Snow’s famous couplet. While not actually LDS scripture, Snow’s couplet is “… so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that this technical point has become moot.”[23]

ELOHIM: 20th CENTURY MAINSTREAM MORMON THEOLOGY

Eventually Brigham Young’s theory waned and Snow’s couplet captured the imagination of Latter-day Saints for many generations. In the aftermath of the Adam-God theology, a new and significant doctrinal direction developed that culminated in mainstream Mormon theology of the last century. Some difficulty arises in nominating the proper spokesperson to expound the 20th century Mormon theology concerning the nature of God. Perhaps some of the best, authoritative examples of traditional LDS orthodoxy of the mid-to-late 1900s are the voluminous works of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who was an Apostle of the Church until his death in 1985. At his death, the L.D.S. Church News, an official newspaper of the Church, spoke of McConkie’s practice of addressing important theological issues in a number of popular books....

For the purpose of establishing a representative LDS theology of the mid-to-late 20th century, perhaps no other source could serve as a better example of Mormon orthodoxy than the works of Elder McConkie.....

Some may question the use of McConkie as a paradigm of mainstream LDS theology of the last century preferring instead the “Standard Works” (i.e., the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) as the real source of Mormon theology. This approach fails to appreciate distinctions made by systematic theology between two religious bodies using the same source of authoritative literature (i.e., the doctrinal distinctions between two Protestant denominations that use the Bible as their sole source of theology).

....Some Latter-day Saints would argue that they are life-long Mormons and their theology has always been very different than that of McConkie. One Mormon writes of McConkie’s book, “Thankfully, Mormon Doctrine is not Mormon doctrine, no matter how many times it is cited in sacrament meeting.”[25]

Rather than developing a more orthodox Trinitarian view of the Godhead, 20th century Mormonism continued to expound on doctrine developed in the final years of Joseph Smith’s life. McConkie’s eschews Mormonism’s original position of strict Monotheism during the 1830s and embraces at a unity of three different Gods. More than a revival of sixth century Tritheism,[27] McConkie’s view was based on the widespread LDS teaching that the universe is populated by many Gods. He further elaborated:

To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] are the only Gods we worship. But in addition [to theses three] there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.[28]

<snips>

cConkie edited the three volume work, Doctrines of Salvation, which was a compilation of the sermons and writings of his father-in-law who was the tenth President and Prophet of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith. In this work is found a brief description of the dilemma:

CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF HOLY GHOST. I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He taught this doctrine to his disciples. He did not teach them that he was the Son of the Holy Ghost.[35]

<snipped a few paragraphs for brevity>

ELOHIM: MOVING TOWARDS THE 21st CENTURY

During the last two decades of the 20th century the theology of the LDS Hierarchy began to show some evidence of change. Unlike early changes, this doctrinal shift is not coming mainly by way of new revelation or authoritative declaration. While the LDS principle of continuing revelation could provide the mechanism for such a transition, this transformation is facilitated by what could be called the “New Doctrinal Emphasis.” In recent years many of the doctrinal distinctives and fundamental building blocks of traditional LDS metaphysics characteristic the last century have been significantly downplayed. Many of the unique LDS theological teachings which characterized the 20th century are seeing little emphasis, are rarely showcased or publicly promoted. Although it has not yet been retracted or renounced, the teaching that Christ was sired physically by the Father and not begotten of the Holy Ghost may already be slated for removal. Other remaining LDS theological distinctives may follow as well. But they probably will not die the quick death of public repudiation but the slow death of de-emphasis.

This New Doctrinal Emphasis is also reflected in (or perhaps amplified by) a parallel reemphasis in the proselytizing methodologies of the Church. This shift avoids focusing potential converts on the unique doctrinal differences of Mormonism’s “restored gospel” compared that of Protestant or Catholic dogma. From their television commercials and Temple Square Visitor Center, to the content of the missionary discussions, the LDS hierarchy of recent decades is clearly softening its militant claims of yesteryear. The First Vision account was until recent decades a major theme for visitors to Temple square in Salt Lake City. It was at the First Vision that Joseph Smith learned that all other churches were apostate and whose creeds were seen to be divinely condemned as “abominable.”[42] It is no longer stressed that converts must abandon the abominable doctrines of their traditional Christianity in order to re-image God in light of the First Vision.

This new (and successful) approach seems to minimize the major doctrinal differences focusing instead on the promotion of family relationships, moral values, and addressing human emotional needs. Thus, new converts may join the Church without ever rejecting the “creeds” and Christology of their background as they were expected to in past generations. As a result, a significant percentage of the two million new members who have joined the Church in the last decade may carry into the Church their traditional Christian theologies (i.e., Protestant and Catholic). As this trend gains momentum, the result may strongly influence Mormon theology in the early 21st century. Among converts and new members, we could see a more eclectic theology emerge consisting of a confluence of LDS beliefs of the 1900s and traditional Christian theologies. This and other theological influences may tend to further divide mainstream LDS doctrine of past generations with Mormon thinking in the new millennium.

MORMON NEO-ORTHODOXY

Another development in Mormon thought has evolved from earlier roots to emerge in the late 1970’s among the LDS intellectual community. It has been described by some as Mormon Neo-orthodoxy. It has received momentum from a number of interdisciplinary forces including women’s studies, anthropology, archaeology, biology, genetics,[43] and historical studies. The later is represented by a new wave of LDS historians who use modern historical methods to do “honest history” that separates the Joseph Smith of history from the Joseph Smith of faith. By demythologizing much of the historical account, they have stripped away its accompanying Mormon dogma. While in most cases still considering themselves to be loyal Latter-day Saints, they are attempting to put a new authenticity and life into the Church structure. This new approach to LDS studies often results in diverse philosophies. For example some Latter-day Saints eventually conclude that the Book of Mormon is “true” but not historical. They would view the story of the Book of Mormon much like an extended parable. God may speak to you though the pages of the book, but there never were Nephites or Lamanites living in the Americas.

Often, liberal Mormon thinkers wish to celebrate the social benefits of the Church as “a great place to raise your kids.” At the same time they may, however, reject the official accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, discount scriptural claims to LDS exclusivity, and minimize Snow’s couplet. They usually would not view the Prophet’s teachings as infallible - perhaps not even helpful.

But surprisingly in some cases, new Mormon studies may also result in a theology more similar to traditional Protestant beliefs. 0. Kendall White, Jr. writes:

The explosion of historical scholarship in Mormon studies during the past two decades has disclosed the essential Protestant flavor of the earliest Mormon beliefs and has provided an authentic foundation for Mormon neo-orthodox theology.

Much like the earliest Mormon converts, the latest neo-orthodox theologians rely primarily upon the Book of Mormon, not the story of Joseph Smith’s first vision, for their doctrines of deity, human nature, and salvation. This emphasis on the Book of Mormon reinforces a trinitarian and absolute God, while a preoccupation with the first vision, a trademark of twentieth-century Mormonism, encourages a tritheistic and anthropocentric God.[44]

He elaborates on this obvious deviation from the Mormon norm and its prominent parallel to Protestant Christology saying:

Though these new Mormon theologians seem less concerned with the concept of God than with the doctrines of human nature and salvation, their position on the classical attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence is evident. A preoccupation with Christ’s perfection and divine justice naturally follows from an emphasis on human failure and the gift of grace.[45]

This liberal development in theology, LDS Neo-Orthodoxy, represents the first substantial shift in belief structure to develop from below (the Church members) and not from above (the Church leadership) and yet remain within (the Church structure). All previous positions that vocally or publicly deviated from the norm have done so from without. In the past, some were ex-communicated against their wishes for expressing far less conflicting views while others left under their own initiative to form rival churches.[46]

The future of LDS Neo-orthodoxy and its unique Christology rests in the uncertainty of the post-Hinckley era. For the last two decades, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor to the Prophet, has been without question the most influential human in the hierarchy of the Church. .... In a post-Hinckley era of glasnost, the new theologies could actually be encouraged as viable expressions of faith within the Mormon establishment. The Church has certainly survived (and even benefited from) more difficult changes in the past (i.e., polygamy and the Black/Priesthood issue).

However, LDS neo-orthodoxy may ultimately fall under its own weight. Its theology is not firmly grounded in Mormon revelation, hierarchal infallibility, or an evangelical view of biblical authority - although its language is sometimes couched in the rhetoric of all three. It may be philosophically difficult to maintain the doctrines of the Reformation without the principle of sola Scriptura which gave birth to them.

ELOHIM: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GORDON B. HINCKLEY

It could be argued that the neo-orthodox movement within the LDS Church only affects a handful of Mormon liberals whose influence is inconsequential and whose loyalties are suspect. Is the nature of God being recast by other, more mainstream Mormons? Are there others besides the liberals re-imagining Elohim?

A perceivable theological shift in recent years can also be documented from the LDS Prophet himself. In a San Francisco Chronicle interview published in 1997, President Gordon B. Hinckley, Prophet, Seer, Revelator and world leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commented on Snow’s famous couplet, which for so long embodied the essence of the LDS doctrine of God. Hinckley was asked to comment on Snow’s couplet as compared with traditional Christian beliefs:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man? A: [Hinckley] I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.[48]

One would not want to read too much into an off-the-cuff response to a reporter’s enquiry....Perhaps Hinckley’s statement was more about public relations than it was about systematic theology but one should not quickly dismiss the possibility of a genuine reevaluation on the part of Mormon leaders.

It is interesting that he did not claim that Latter-day Saints never believed it - only that he “wouldn’t say that” and that “we don’t know very much about” it.

Very significantly, later in the same interview, Hinckley had no reservations about confirming the second half of Snow’s couplet. “Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this? A: [Hinckley] Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.”[50]

In a PBS program aired the same year reporter Richard Ostling, coauthor of Mormon America: The Power and the Promise commented on this intentional shift in emphasis:

President Gordon Hinckley says the concept of God having been a man is not stressed any longer, but he does believe that human beings can become gods in the afterlife. Hinckley stated: ‘Well, they can achieve to a godly status, yes, of course they can, eternal progression. We believe in the progression of the human soul. … We believe in the eternity and the infinity of the human soul, and its great possibilities.’[51]

Portions of the Hinckley interview were published in Time magazine. Concerning the idea of God having once been a man,

At first Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that ‘it's of course an idea. It's a hope for a wishful thing,’ but later affirmed that ‘yes, of course they can.’… On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.’[52]

Evidence of this same reemphasis can be found in the writings of recent Mormon apologists. In his book Are Mormons Christian,[55] Stephen Robinson make a valiant effort to support the second half of Snow’s couplet (human deification) arguing that the belief is evident in the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers.[56] But having quoted Snow, he attempted no defense of Snow’s first statement - that God was once a man.[57]



CONCLUSION

Are Latter-day Saints re-imagining Elohim? Theologians and students of Mormon Studies who are in dialogue with Latter-day Saints should remember that “God” may mean something very different to one Latter-day Saint than to another. What Latter-day General Authorities have taught for decades past does not necessarily translate into the pew. Converts to the church, unaware of 150-years of LDS dogma, often import their own, traditional theologies into the ward.[58] Liberal Latter-day Saint may be very aware of LDS dogma but not feel any necessity to comply. Even the Prophet himself seems intent on moving beyond some aspects of the doctrines of his predecessors.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the motives for change or the social or political factors that may precede them....Historically, however, within its highest leadership, the church’s theology has also experienced internal criticism and pressures to re-imagine its teachings about the nature of God.[59] It is difficult to determine whether this latest apparent shift is largely cosmetic, to affect public perception,[60] or if Hinckley is intending to truly influence his people to think about God differently.[61] Either way, this could be a noteworthy development in Mormon studies.

When engaging in religious dialogue with Latter-day Saints, it should be remembered that there is no a unified Mormon theology of God. While this has always been the case, it is probably truer in the early 21st century than in decades past. Evangelicals wishing to inform, influence, or critique LDS concepts of God should consider a relational approach with care given to define concepts like “deity” and terms like “Elohim” or “Heavenly Father.”

<snipped rest>
Justjohnna, what an interesting article! A lot of what he says I would agree with. I've noticed that many Mormons are quite Trinitarian in their beliefs....as odd as that sounds! Do you realize that if Mormons would say that there are "three persons" in the Godhead, rather than "three personages," they'd sound orthodox?

The biggest obstacle to an acceptance of Mormonism as a genuine Christian expression is the LDS view of the Godhead and the nature of man.

As far as the BOM goes, it is Trinitarian leaning toward modalism.....but, it certainly is not tritheistic or polytheistic at all. And if Mormons contend that it contains the "fulness of the everlasting Gospel," then they should consider the BOM's teaching on the Godhead.

Are you aware that some Mormon breakoff groups are nearly Trinitarian, and consider Smith's later teachings to be an example of his "fallen" prophethood?

[just Johnna]

Justjohnna, what an interesting article! A lot of what he says I would agree with.

Yes, I thought it quite a development and documentation of the ideas you were expressing earlier. However, I also thought it interesting that the author missed what has been consistent about the LDS understanding of God, which would be predicative of what it will continue to be in the future.


I've noticed that many Mormons are quite Trinitarian in their beliefs....as odd as that sounds!

Probably more remarkable to me is how odd that sounds to you and others.


Do you realize that if Mormons would say that there are "three persons" in the Godhead, rather than "three personages," they'd sound orthodox?Ah, do you realize most of us say "three personages" rather than "three persons" because "three persons" just sounds like three-guys-down-the-street? Because the word "personage" is less common and unfamiliar, it sounds fancier and more respectful to many ears.

I'm not sure what "quite Trinitarian" means, but I have noticed we often don't agree on how we differ in our concept of God.

Lately, I've been very happy thinking along the lines of Blake Ostler's ideas of God.


The biggest obstacle to an acceptance of Mormonism as a genuine Christian expression is the LDS view of the Godhead and the nature of man. Yet it seems to be the most difficult to talk about. This morning I think the nature of man is a bigger gap.


As far as the BOM goes, it is Trinitarian leaning toward modalism.....but, it certainly is not tritheistic or polytheistic at all. And if Mormons contend that it contains the "fulness of the everlasting Gospel," then they should consider the BOM's teaching on the Godhead.There is quite an interest in the term "fulness," which is not the same term as "completeness." In fact, it's probably impossible to ever have completeness in the gospel, by my way of thinking. It is possible, and more desirable, to have fulness.

You might compare this to the idea of perfection as it is used in the New Testament, being different than how the word perfection is used in popular culture.


Are you aware that some Mormon breakoff groups are nearly Trinitarian, and consider Smith's later teachings to be an example of his "fallen" prophethood?yes, but are you aware that some Christian breakoff groups are LDS, and consider the council of Nicea to be an example of "fallen" leadership? See, unfortunately that methodology doesn't clarify anything.

[Krusader]

Yes, I thought it quite a development and documentation of the ideas you were expressing earlier. However, I also thought it interesting that the author missed what has been consistent about the LDS understanding of God, which would be predicative of what it will continue to be in the future.



Probably more remarkable to me is how odd that sounds to you and others.

Ah, do you realize most of us say "three personages" rather than "three persons" because "three persons" just sounds like three-guys-down-the-street? Because the word "personage" is less common and unfamiliar, it sounds fancier and more respectful to many ears.

I'm not sure what "quite Trinitarian" means, but I have noticed we often don't agree on how we differ in our concept of God.

Lately, I've been very happy thinking along the lines of Blake Ostler's ideas of God.

Yet it seems to be the most difficult to talk about. This morning I think the nature of man is a bigger gap.

There is quite an interest in the term "fulness," which is not the same term as "completeness." In fact, it's probably impossible to ever have completeness in the gospel, by my way of thinking. It is possible, and more desirable, to have fulness.

You might compare this to the idea of perfection as it is used in the New Testament, being different than how the word perfection is used in popular culture.

yes, but are you aware that some Christian breakoff groups are LDS, and consider the council of Nicea to be an example of "fallen" leadership? See, unfortunately that methodology doesn't clarify anything.
Justjohnna, your post has a great deal I could comment on, but to to limited time, let me address the "Council of Nicea." This Council simply formulated the doctrine of the Trinity - which was already embraced by orthodox believers. The Council was necessary because of the rise of Arianism - the teaching that Jesus Christ was not God, but a created being. You find this today in such groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc.

The Bible, I believe, teaches that there is only One God. It teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. This is called "The Holy Trinity," which is simply a man-made title for the Godhead.

The Book of Mormon was obviously written by a person who was at least semi-Trinitarian, but seemed to not entirely grasp the fact that God could be Tri-Personal in nature, i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit at one time. I know you didn't like the "test tube" analogy, but I personally think it's a good one. The BOM's author was modalistic in his approach to the Godhead.

Subsequently, of course, Smith changed his position on the Godhead, which is why Mormonism seems to have one group that believes one thing, and another group which believes another. This is why I brought up some of the LDS off-shoots who are partially Trinitarian (having a low view of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, it seems), and view the polytheism of Smith's later writings as evidence that his "prophethood" had fallen.

Blake Ostler:explain?

[just Johnna]

let me address the "Council of Nicea." This Council simply formulated the doctrine of the Trinity - which was already embraced by orthodox believers.Of course, it is my belief that the council may have gone beyond that which was embraced by orthodox believers.

The Council was necessary because of the rise of Arianism - the teaching that Jesus Christ was not God, but a created being. You find this today in such groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc.I agree that it was very necessary to clarify that Jesus is and was God, not less than God. And in fact, the statement is so excellent, I find it breathtaking, and clear evidence of the Holy Ghost being among those at the Council, that they got it so close to right. (I'm not trying to provoke you, but that's really how I think about it. This differs from a popular LDS view that it was all simply apostate.) It seems to protect Jesus from accusations of createdness, they deemed it necessary to merge him into the Father, because philosophically he would otherwise be construed as inferior. Thank heaven the scriptures prevented a complete conflation.

I find it interesting as I read the Nicene Creed, the only language I question is the "one substance" word, and if that were to mean all three persons of the Godhead are of divine stuff, then I would be able to agree to all. But of course, when I talk to other Christians, I find they do not take the Creed as literally as I do--begotten doesn't mean begotten, apparently it means uncreated heir. Which is true, though less of the whole truth in my estimation. "Son" doesn't mean "son." and so on.

So I'm of the opinion that the creed went beyond how believers thought at the time, in order to secure in the philosophy the divinity of Christ. And, I'm of the opinion that how the creed is read and understood may have drifted since it was drafted.

Why do you love systematic theology?


The Bible, I believe, teaches that there is only One God. It teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. This is called "The Holy Trinity," which is simply a man-made title for the Godhead.Of course, I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. (You'll see me often say Holy Ghost for Holy Spirit a lot, as I'm primarily a reader of KJV.) I believe they are one Godhead together--the perfect relationship and complete accord with each other and demonstration of truth and righteousness is God.

Of course, I'm just using my own words here, so who knows what protestant potholes I just stepped in.


The Book of Mormon was obviously written by a person who was at least semi-Trinitarian, but seemed to not entirely grasp the fact that God could be Tri-Personal in nature, i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit at one time. I know you didn't like the "test tube" analogy, but I personally think it's a good one. The BOM's author was modalistic in his approach to the Godhead.the problem with the test tube model is that matter bears no interesting relations to itself in various states. And it has no personality.


Blake Ostler:explain?You could google him. He's around, and his name is unusual enough. Since he has training in philosophy, he probably uses words better than I do in describing God. He's LDS.


Justjohnna, your post has a great deal I could comment on, but to to limited time,Perhaps we should aim to continue our conversation at a slower pace--I would rather bring out the depth of your insights than scurry past on the cut-and-paste.

I see you're very busy on the Islam board too, and you must have a full and meaningful real life away from the internet. Anyway, tomorrow school starts up again here and you'll see less of me--I'll be pulled closer into something that more resembles balance.

Let us continue at a slower pace then, perhaps? I know I can help simply by letting at least a day pass before answering, or simply responding less. I perceive it is important to you to maintain this forum by letting no post go unanswered.

[Phatboy]

That is quite a leap! The entire theological assumptions would have to change.
Easier than switching to Protestantism, though.

[just Johnna]

That is quite a leap! The entire theological assumptions would have to change.
Easier than switching to Protestantism, though.
Would you like to elaborate?

[freelight]

I've spent many years in the field of apologetics, and in all that time there is only one group which has shifted from a full-blown cult to modified orthodoxy, and that is the Worldwide Church of God. Although some of their doctrines are heterodox, the church now teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and justification by faith apart from works.

A similar move in the SDA sect a few years ago by some pastors, disclosed that their prophetess, White, had plagarized other authors. Some SDA churches have moved more toward orthodoxy.

I've always had a feeling that there is a movement within the LDS Church by some to move the Church closer to orthodox positions on the godhead, salvation, etc. Of course, at the present time, it would appear that the old guard controls the brethren - but they will die off in time.

Mormonism has demonstrated that it can discard doctrines and shift positions. The Reorganized Church is Mormon in name only, with many in that group giving only lip-service to the BOM (some see it as a parable).

Some Mormons posting here don't seem to toe the line on traditional Mormon teaching - which to me is evidence that change is not impossible.

Comments?


Hi Crusader,

The WWCG and SDA churches have a greater affinity/investment with traditional/orthodox christianity....because its from whence they sprang...and these groups hold primarily to the Bible as their 'scripture' (there being no definitive extra-biblical revelations or 'scriptures' in addition per se.)

The reorganized Church(Community of Christ) I see as existing as the early lds church in its infancy...when it was simply called the Church of Christ (holding to similar belief as David Whitmer as expressed in his 'An address to all believers in Christ' [1887]). As far as I know today....it holds to JS as prophet and the BoM as inspired writing (whether it be parable or mythos). - but this issue of the BoM's authenticity is problematic....as JS presented it as an 'actual' historical account {here we have the issue of dishonesty/deception}. Anyways....because the reorganized church was continued by JS's son....the prophetic legacy is integral to the churches foundation. At a certain point they must hold to the BoM as 'true' in some sense....while maybe opting to deem JS a fallen prophet concerning his post-BoM doctrines (polygamy/godhood, etc.). So the reorganized are maintained in a subtle dilemma, if such is even recognized.

Now for the primary lds church converting to christian orthodoxy. Not in your lifetime. The investments in JS are too deep and while doctrinal changes have occurred per situational ethics and other conveniences....the primary sect will never accept traditional/orthodox christianity as a whole or as an existing religious institution. Such cannot be possible without undermining, demolishing, abandoning the very foundation/authority/veracity of mormonism at its very core.

Therefore the only possibility is for individuals to convert over to a more traditional/orthodox understanding/purivew as they abandon precepts of mormonism....unless the whole superstructure of the churchs doctrinal foundations can be revolutionized. JS dies hard....even amid all the varying opinions about him within and without the church.


As far as religious faith goes in persons and institutions....it all comes down to 'investment'. Only after surveying everything as thoroughly as I could...would I invest anything into it....and we are all at different stages of invest-igation and prioritizing our value/worship of persons or systems that have any real substance. If you discover that your 'prophet' was really a charlatan whose creative inventions sort of snow-balled into a growing entity...which later perhaps he himself believed and had nothing else to do but to run with it....well,.....you are bound to put your cookies in another basket.


paul

[Alexander's Mom]

What's wrong with the "one substance" claim? If we recognize the unity of all three, naturally whatever substance of which one exists would belong to the others.

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader,

The WWCG and SDA churches have a greater affinity/investment with traditional/orthodox christianity....because its from whence they sprang...and these groups hold primarily to the Bible as their 'scripture' (there being no definitive extra-biblical revelations or 'scriptures' in addition per se.)

The reorganized Church(Community of Christ) I see as existing as the early lds church in its infancy...when it was simply called the Church of Christ (holding to similar belief as David Whitmer as expressed in his 'An address to all believers in Christ' [1887]). As far as I know today....it holds to JS as prophet and the BoM as inspired writing (whether it be parable or mythos). - but this issue of the BoM's authenticity is problematic....as JS presented it as an 'actual' historical account {here we have the issue of dishonesty/deception}. Anyways....because the reorganized church was continued by JS's son....the prophetic legacy is integral to the churches foundation. At a certain point they must hold to the BoM as 'true' in some sense....while maybe opting to deem JS a fallen prophet concerning his post-BoM doctrines (polygamy/godhood, etc.). So the reorganized are maintained in a subtle dilemma, if such is even recognized.

Now for the primary lds church converting to christian orthodoxy. Not in your lifetime. The investments in JS are too deep and while doctrinal changes have occurred per situational ethics and other conveniences....the primary sect will never accept traditional/orthodox christianity as a whole or as an existing religious institution. Such cannot be possible without undermining, demolishing, abandoning the very foundation/authority/veracity of mormonism at its very core.

Therefore the only possibility is for individuals to convert over to a more traditional/orthodox understanding/purivew as they abandon precepts of mormonism....unless the whole superstructure of the churchs doctrinal foundations can be revolutionized. JS dies hard....even amid all the varying opinions about him within and without the church.


As far as religious faith goes in persons and institutions....it all comes down to 'investment'. Only after surveying everything as thoroughly as I could...would I invest anything into it....and we are all at different stages of invest-igation and prioritizing our value/worship of persons or systems that have any real substance. If you discover that your 'prophet' was really a charlatan whose creative inventions sort of snow-balled into a growing entity...which later perhaps he himself believed and had nothing else to do but to run with it....well,.....you are bound to put your cookies in another basket.


paul

I'd agree that JS dies hard and that we won't see an orthodox Christian Mormonism any time soon. However, what we're seeing here is a "revisionist" Mormonism, where the words of prophets (Young for instance) are of no value when proving Mormon beliefs. They are very sly and cunning when presenting the happy face Mormonism to the potential convert - it isn't until the convert is introduced to the deeper teachings of Mormonism (you can become a god, etc.), that the convert learns the true nature of Mormon occult teachings.

By the way, this is why many converts eventually leave the LDS Church - when they realize that they have been duped into joining a cult that misrepresented its beliefs.

[PaulT]

JJ,
Other than the LDS, who happened upon the seen some 1500 or so years later,

yes, but are you aware that some Christian breakoff groups are LDS, and consider the council of Nicea to be an example of "fallen" leadership? See, unfortunately that methodology doesn't clarify anything.
What Christian groups consider Nicea to be an example of fallen leadership?

Paul