A Question About Mormonism

A facebook friend wrote to me. Her question is below.

"...Another reason that I am writing is becuase I have some questions about Mormonism. I am not Mormon and I do not want to become one. I am perfectly happy with my faith as a Non-denominational Christian. My curiousity with the LDS and the FLDS is at an all time high though. I have a friend of mine, who really is a great genuine guy who would give the shirt off of his back. He is Mormon. We have had some discussions about it but I am delicate in the conversation because I don't want to disrespect or be judgemental to his beliefs. [...] I guess what I am looking for is the Honest to God truth. I keep thinking there must be some good to it because I know great people who are LDS members and they are happy with their faith and believe what they have been taught is the truth. I also know, aside from the people who I know that are Momon, there are a lot of followers. There is 2 sides to everything and the only information I seem to get is one-sided. One side is truly behind the Mormon religion and the side that is against it. I am hoping with your relgious education, experience, and knowledge, I can get some honest insight [...]

-C."

Dear C.,

I'll tell you my opinion, but I think I'm going to introduce you to a Lutheran friend (pastor) who is a little more versed on the subject of other faiths. But my thougts first...

Trinity

First: Mormons don't belienve in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the same way that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans (including Episcopalians like me) and Protestants do. For Mormons the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three (or maybe two) separate individuals. That difference greatly alters greatly the conception of God and who Jesus is and what Jesus is all about.

Morality 

Second: I agree. I see many moral Mormons out there. Some Mormons are really, REALLY good people. Indeed, I think that as a whole Mormons could teach many others a great deal about family as a priority, about self-discipline, community, and moral living. I have heard of a non-Mormon who once said that if Mormonism was a civic club or organization they would sign right up (because of the things I just mentioned). The problem for that person was the religious claims of Mormonism, stemming from the Book of Mormon and from the LDS hierarchy.

A Common Problem 

Third: Many Christians ("and Mormons" or "including Mormons" depending on your perspective) believe that living a good (i.e. a righteouss and morally pure) life is what is needed to enter heaven or to "be saved." Orthodox Christianity says that is mistaken. We simply can't be good enough to enter Heaven or save ourselves by doing good things or being good people. When we think that we can, Christ (and the Bible) tell us that we're in denial.

Salvation

Fourth: What saves us is Jesus Christ. Who he is. What he is. What he did, is doing, and will do. And that is why my first point is so important. Mormons and orthodox Christians disagree on who Jesus is, what he meant, and what his actions resulted in. And thus we have a different understanding of what salvation is all about.

Who's In & Who's Out?

Last Point: "Are Mormons saved?" This is undoubtedly the question that comes up next. The answer is "That's up to God." (That is, by the way, is the same answer for each of us when we ask about our own salvation.)

We all have a faulty understanding of Jesus and salvation because we are all sinners. Sin inhibits our view of truth, goodness, and righteousness. We all depend on God's grace through Jesus to straighten us out. And each of us has to choose every day whether to accept that grace or refuse it. In as much as a Mormon or anyone else, accepts Jesus on Jesus' terms, we are promised salvation through Jesus. The question then is how much are we (all of us) embracing what Jesus calls us to, without addition, negation, or excuse.

I personally think the answer to that question will defy denominational and religious boundaries. Best advice I know is to cling to Jesus and not let other things get between the two of you. Much easier said than done.

Homosexuality, a Parish, the Episcopal Church, & the Anglican Communion

From a Presbyterian friend and colleague: "I'm curious, if it's not too complicated to answer-- how does the current turmoil in the Anglican Church affect you and/or St. Peter's? - J."

Dear J.,

A good question that I'm happy to reply to. The simple answer is, "Not much," at least not yet. The Episcopal Church's decisions to move forward with the blessings of same-sex couples and allowing openly gay persons to become bishops hasn't impacted us hardly at all.

These are large decsions dealing with the overall direction of the Episcopal church over a long period of time. As a local parish we're very concerned with individuals, small groups, and shorter periods of time.   

The most imminent struggle and turmoil facing St. Peter's is both more mundane and more important, namely the day to day struggle to keep Christ central in our own lives. The temptation in times like these is to make whatever issue the Church is facing the focus of our activity, thoughts, emotions, and reflections. To give in to that temptation is, of course, idolatry. Christ alone should be the focal point of our lives, thoughts, and actions. The rest falls into place afterwards.

Someone might ask, "Isn't St. Peter's concerned with social justice" or "....concerned with morality or Biblical authority and fidelity to the Gospel?" Of course we are! However, as a small parish our approach is to take one person at a time. The joy of working on the local level is the ability to see a person for who they are, not what group they are affiliated with. Jane is Jane first, not primarily a conservative or a lesbian or a priest or a Japanese American. Jane is Jane, and we are interested in inviting Jane to a life of faith in Christ no matter what descriptors she may use for herself or others of her. 

Personally, I'm more concerned with the individuals being trampled in the dust by all the flag waving by both sides. I try not to worry about making the right call on the issues and worry about missing opportunities to make God's love known to those who are bruised and bleeding, regardless of what "camp" they're in.

Regardless of what decsions we make as a national church, we all remain sinners utterly dependent on God's grace to make us whole and "good people." We cannot save ourselves through righteous living or good legislation. Ultimately, even our best efforts are flawed. Once we realize how dependent we are (a very Calvanist thought, by the way), perhaps we can relax and take Martin Luther's advice: "Love God and do what you will."

Striving to keep Christ in the center, 

Fr. James+

Who wrote the Gospels?

A friend on facebook wrote, "James, ...I recently  learned that the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, respectively. Who did write them? And, also, if no one was actually at the Garden of Gesemity, then how do we really know what happened there? This is of high interest for me and your expertise would be invaluable.  -C."

Great question, C. 

Like so many important questions about the Bible and the Christian Faith, not everyone agrees. I'll try to break it down into three camps, conservative, moderate, and liberal views. Keep in mind that those distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, that there is a great diversity of opinion out there, and I'm using "broad brush strokes" to paint a big picture.

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: Scripture is written by those bearing the titles of the books. So, for instance, The Gospel of Matthew was written by St. Matthew, The Gospel of John was written by St. John, etc. This is especially true of books that say they are written by someone. The Gospel of Luke/The Acts of the Apostles, a 2 volume set, explicitley say that they are written by Luke.

THE LIBERAL VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: Scripture has been written by many authors, edited, amended, redacted, and changed over time by scribes, scholars, and the communities the read them. This view tends to challenge authorship the most. Ironically, this doesn't bothers liberal thinkers in the least. Rather, it points to how the Holy Spirit has been and continues to be active in the inspiration and formation of the Church.

A MODERATE or "VIA MEDIA" VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: This view holds that some of the books are written by their namesakes and some are not. Scholarship helps us figure it out. While authorship is important, Scripture is Scripture because God has made it so and the community has recognized God's continued action in and through it. This view tries to balance rigourous scrutiny and criticism (Liberal ideals) with the ultimate understanding that Scripture holds authority over our faith (Conservative ideals).

C., I hold the moderate view, myself. And so here are my opinions based on the scholarship I am aware of:

MARK: The first Gospel written was Mark. It is unlikely, yet still very possible, that it was written by John Mark who accompanied the apostle St. Peter on his missionary journeys and perhaps recorded Peter's thoughts. It was written around the time of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), while many of the Apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.) and their disciples (Mark, Luke, Timothy, etc.) were living and so has the greatest chance of being the work of one of 12 Apostles or their disciples. It is doubtful that it would have survived without having accurately exemplified the teachings of the 12 Disciples.

MATTHEW/LUKE: Matthew and Luke were probably written a little later by the disciples of the 12 Disciples (Barnabas, Clement, Mark, Luke, etc). They could very well be the collected teachings of their namesakes put into Gospel story form. It is also possible, though less likely, that they are the works or their namesakes. It is clear that both used Mark as a base and then made changes and additions as needed. The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. The Gospel of Luke (with it's second volume, The Acts of the Apostles) was written for a Gentile audience. Luke purposefully speaks of researching and collecting data, and thus probably represents the teachings of many apostles and leaders. This fits with what we know of St. Luke's experience of traveling to the various Gentile churches with St. Paul.

JOHN: The Gospel of John was written very late, perhaps A.D. 90 - 120, when Christians were being alienated from mainstream Judaism and persecuted for their faith. Thus is takes a pretty harsh tone towards "The Jews". To modern understanding, it is probably more accurate to read "the Jews" as "the Judeans". Anyway, it was probably written by the disciples of John or the disciples of the disciples of John, and not John himself. St. John was the last of the 12 Disciples to die and the only one to die of old age. Thus the late date of the Gospel makes sense. At best it was dictated by St. John. Otherwise, it is St. John's teachings remembered and collected by his students and written down by one author.

One last thing to keep in mind: Our understanding of authorship is not the same as the ancient understanding. Many people did not write, some could read, but most were illiterate. When writing a letter or a book, a person hired a scribe who would take down what one dictated. Part of the job description of the scribe was to make the work clear to the reader and thus a scribe might put in phrases or words to further clarify what the speaker was trying to communicate. The final work was still considered authentically the work of the speaker so long as the ideas contained therein were preserved acurately. By those standards, any Gospel that preserves the acurate thoughts and message of its namesake can be considered to be authored by that person. 

I hope that helps!

Fr. James+ 

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people