The Dictatorship of Relativism
During the White House Welcoming Ceremony for Pope Benedict XVI on April 16, President Bush referred briefly to a phrase that has come to be regarded as a central concern of Benedict's pontificate:
"In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this 'dictatorship of relativism,' and embrace a culture of justice and truth."
Of course, Pope Benedict does not regard "relativism" as merely the inability to "distinguish between simple right and wrong," but as the inability to recognize that there is such a thing as truth—and that conforming our lives to the truth matters. Modern Americans, of course, all know that what they believe—whatever it might be—is correct, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree," they say, though of course what they really mean is "I'm right; you're wrong; but it's hardly worth arguing about."
Truth is nice, after all, but it's not as if it's important.
It's no wonder, then, that Americans express such surprise when someone acts as if truth actually matters—as if, in the words of Richard M. Weaver, "ideas have consequences." If someone believes something that's untrue, but it doesn't affect my life, what's the harm?
Last Friday, the Catholic News Service broke the story that
In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons' Genealogical Society of Utah.
The directive, handed down on April 5 by the Congregation for the Clergy, stated that
This dicastery is bringing this matter to the attention of the various conferences of bishops. The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
When the news was released, to put it bluntly, all hell broke loose. The Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead has made the Mormon church perhaps the chief institutional supporter of genealogical research in the world. The Congregation for the Clergy wasn't reacting to individual researchers looking up individual records of their ancestors, but to the Mormon practice of copying parish register wholesale and incorporating the information into their database.
Mormons in good standing are encouraged to receive baptism by proxy for non-Mormon ancestors who have died, and the practice has expanded over the years to include anyone descended from a common ancestor. All orthodox Christians believe that baptism is only for the living, and while Saint Paul refers briefly to baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 (in the context of arguing for the truth of the Resurrection), all of the historical instances of baptism for the dead that are attested were performed by heretical groups (such as the Marcionites and the Gnostics).
But, the modern American says, what's the big deal? After all, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that Mormon baptism of the living, much less of the dead, is valid, so no harm, no foul, right? And besides, the Mormon doctrine has such useful results—namely, the Mormon genealogical database, which all are free to use. This just proves that the Catholic Church is mean-spirited. Perhaps all those nasty things people said about Pope Benedict before he came to the United States and seemed all friendly and cuddly were true after all.
And yet, there is this point: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaches a doctrine that has been condemned by the Christian Church since apostolic times, a doctrine that has been associated only with heretical groups. The Catholic Church preaches that baptism is only for the living, yet many parishes were allowing Mormons to copy their parish records, knowing that the purpose in doing so was to facilitate Mormon baptism for the dead.
In other words, the action undermined the Catholic teaching. Ideas do have consequences, after all. If Faith Fitzpatrick knows that Father Mulroney is letting Joe Smith photocopy the parish records so that he can rebaptize all of her ancestors, she may not necessarily come to doubt the Christian teaching on baptism, but she might well begin to think that it is relatively unimportant.
The Catholic Church is taking a lot of heat for this decision, but it was the correct one to make. Whatever benefits might have been gained from the Mormon practice, they were all incidental to the promulgation of a false doctrine. Sometimes, standing up for the truth is most important precisely when it seems least important.
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming
Here is a simple reason that Mormons desire to be called Christians—We believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in the Old and New Testaments. We believe that the Apostles had the priesthood authority to preside over the Lord’s Church after His ascension. We believe that as the Apostles taught, and as their actions demonstrated, they did not expect the Church to survive. We believe that with the passing of the Apostles, the protection they had provided against false doctrines passed also. They had been instructed directly by the Lord. When they were gone we see the wolves step in and false doctrine flourish. The Apostles had nothing good to say of the future of the Church. The early Fathers admitted that they knew far less than the Apostles, and yet, out of the chaos, we are only to be counted Christian if we believe in the changes that were made hundreds of years later by those that followed?
Creation ex nihilo is a perfect example. It is not the teaching of the Old or New Testament—admittedly it isn’t clearly ruled out either. It wasn’t considered an essential doctrine for Origen, Justin, Clement of Alexandria. As a refutation of the Gnostic belief of the evil of matter Irenaeus makes it doctrine. Augustine furthers it. Rejecting creation ex nihilo isn’t rejecting Christ, His Apostles, or the scriptures. This same pattern is found concerning many primary doctrines of the Church. It is entirely possible to reject the doctrines that came hundreds of years later without rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Concerning our other books. They all support the Bible. They are not replacements for the Old or New Testament. Concerning our own set of beliefs. They are pretty much all found in the scriptures or the earliest writings we have of the Church. This baptism for the dead was mentioned by Paul and discussed by many early writers. It is not outside of the Gospel, just outside of what was later made doctrine. If these things were not considered anathema when the Apostles guided the church, how can they be rejected out of hand now?
A question is Vergil's fate in Dante's work Catholic doctrine? Can those who were born before the coming of the Lord receive salvation?
The bottom line is the LDS Church does not recognize the traditional Christian church's authority to baptize. LDS theology holds that there was a great apostasy as spoken about in the NT. After the last apostle died, the priesthood (authority to act in God's name) was taken from the earth. Everything thereafter was a man made creation and had no effect. It wasn't until the original church, as established by Christ, was restored through Joseph Smith that anyone had authority to baptize or perform any of the church ordinances. (Marriage for time only is an earthly ordinance.) Smith got his authority to act, aka priesthood, by Peter James and John. They, as heavenly beings, returned as part of the restoration to re-instate the priesthood as it was at Christ's time. Therefore, everyone baptized by an unauthorized person is null and void.
This worldwide genealogical work is to identify every human being who has ever been born or will be born and provide vicarious baptism for them by an authorized priesthood holder. During the millennial reign of Christ, the heavens will be more accessible. At that time the names of the dead who were not recorded on earth will be made available for this and other ordinances. The dead are currently being taught the gospel by authorized missionaries on the other side of the veil.
It should be understood that this vicarious ordinance does not obligate anyone who is dead. It is an offering which they can decline if they choose. Mormons hold that there is only one church on the earth with authority to offer eternal ordinances.
Also, there are no permanent religious divisions amongst the dead. That means there are no Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Buddhists, Moslems or Hindus on the other side. There is just one religion and that is the one which has existed for eternity. The denominations exist only until the all dead can be taught and given an opportunity to accept or reject the message. Following the resurrection, every person will be judged according to his works on the earth and assigned to one of three degrees of glory. Satan and his angels, and a select number who lived on the earth, will be cast into outer darkness for eternity. Christ’s atonement allows every human being to be resurrected. Without it we all would be consigned to outer darkness.
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to how Mormons perceive other denominations. They sometimes ask whether we believe Catholicism is the “Whore of Babylon” or consider all other denominations as abominations before God. First, separate the doctrines of other denominations from the body of believers and the work they do. We do not believe Catholicism is inherently evil although certainly evil deeds have been committed by evil men. But individuals or subordinate groups within an institution do not always represent the institution as a whole. We do not believe Catholicism is inherently evil. To the contrary; Catholicism has kept Christ alive in countless millions of lives in an otherwise pagan world and been instrumental in founding priceless institutions we rely on.
When we speak of abominations in other dominations’ we mean doctrines which divide God’s children and separate them from Him or deny God his literal fatherhood and Christ his sonship. We hold the Nicene Creed and those like it to be such doctrines. We believe these to be traditions of men and are not supported in the NT. They are an outgrowth of despot’s need to consolidate power in a crumbling Roman empire and are an amalgam of Christianity and paganism. These are pretty strong words and seem to attack the fundamental beliefs of millions of good and decent people. For some, nothing will salve what they consider an assault. We understand that. It is not intended to be a rebuke or to be harsh. But we also believe it can be put to the test.
Hopefully I can explain "Whore of Babylon" so as not to inflame anyone's senses. We believe this statement and "the great and abominable church” and "the church of Babylon" to mean worldliness. It does not refer to any denomination or religious belief system. It refers to replacing God with hedonism and worldly pursuits. The anti-Christ is not the Pope. At the time of first century Christianity it was considered to be Nero or the Roman emperor. I think most LDS scholars accept that. Those people who look at Catholicism in these terms are way off base. In some Mormon circles you may here said that there can only be three of the Judeo Christian religions that can legitimately claim direct authority from God. They are Judaism, Catholicism and Mormonism. None of the others had permission to start their own church. Their perceived authority comes from what we believe is some convoluted and disjointed logic especially in light of how the NT says authority is passed down. We don't say that very loud though. We don't want to unnecessarily offend anyone.
Mr. Fuller
What is LDS view of the Godhead and the Nicene Creed which Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox ,with some quibbling over a word or two, hold as being a good summary of the main points of what a Christian is to believe?
CT
CT
Let me set some context. Mormons believe we have always existed in one form or another. God, our heavenly Father provided our literal spirit bodies and created the first man and placed a spirit in him and he propagated as we all know, with Christ being the sole exception. His father was God the Father, a separate being from Christ. When Christ said if you have seen me you have seen the Father indicates a physical likeness not that they are one and the same. Christ is Jehovah who was a God before he was born into the world. Both have physical bodies just as we see when He was resurrected and took his resurrected body to heaven. God the Father, also known as Eloheim and the Holy Ghost are individuals with the Holy Ghost being the communicator with man. Together they are the Godhead.
The NC says all three combined into one being. We agree with part of the NC in that all three are one in purpose, power and understanding and so forth however they are separate individuals. We take what the NT says about the three literally where the Creeds adopted a Greek version of the nature of God. I think I am correct in that last statement. It has been a while since I researched that part. It seems critically important to me that traditional Christians have built the credibility of their entire existence on whether the Creeds are accurate. They leave no room to re-interpret with new information or other points of view. That makes them fragile. So when logic and the understanding of history successfully refute any part of the Creeds the whole of traditional Christendom is shaken and starts to go wobbly. I guess you can say it puts much of what they say in doubt.
The second part of your question about what a good Christian is to understand takes a little different turn here. We are Christian because we believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ with the same understanding of other believers in Him, for the most part anyway. Some differences are His divine sonship, that His atonement covers every being in the universe not just on earth, that He followed the literal example His father set, that we are also to follow His literal example insofar as we are capable (we can’t bring about an atonement but we can sacrifice for others). Maybe the most controversial part is that in a full partaking of Christ’s inheritance we too can become divine in nature. Some traditional Christians claim that that makes us polytheists. However I think it makes it a little bit more understandable when we take the NT literally and don’t filter it through the NC. The atonement and the full inheritance of Christ is a separate course of study in itself, so brief comments like I include can’t do it justice. Does that answer your question or did I misunderstand?
"We are Christian because we believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ with the same understanding of other believers in Him, for the most part anyway. Some differences are His divine sonship, that His atonement covers every being in the universe not just on earth, that He followed the literal example His father set, that we are also to follow His literal example insofar as we are capable (we can’t bring about an atonement but we can sacrifice for others). Maybe the most controversial part is that in a full partaking of Christ’s inheritance we too can become divine in nature."
No Christianity has ever defined itself as simply "belief in the divinity of Christ." Thats why the Creeds exist. They summarize the main points of what Christian faith entails. Unless you are completely altering the historical definition of Christianity, which I believe you are, then you cannot call the above articles of your faith Christian. I hear Mormons say that they are Christian because they 'believe in Jesus Christ as their savior." But that statement is too vague and obviously meant to blur the line between what most of Christianity has believed for 2000 years and what you actually mean when you say that.
Edward
You are correct in at least one sense. We have never defined ourselves as Christian in the same mold as traditional Christianity. But we reserve the right to worship Christ as we see fit. We hold no brook with anyone who thinks differently than we do but a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise us appears to be a marketing ploy aimed at those who don't study the issues like you and I do. Some may say they are just protecting the innocent from heritics. But by the same token they never address the issue we raise about the Creeds. Of course we suggest there is a way to find out for oneself whether we are heretical or not. And it doesn't rely on any human being to tell them. In fact we suggest relying on the "arm of man", also known as the understanding of men, is going in the wrong direction. I think the NC is a prima facia example of that.
Like I said above - one thing I have not encountered in Creedal Christianity is a response to what I said earlier. I copied it below.
"It seems critically important to me that traditional Christians have built the credibility of their entire existence on whether the Creeds are accurate. They leave no room to re-interpret with new information or other points of view. That makes them fragile. So when logic and the understanding of history successfully refute any part of the Creeds the whole of traditional Christendom is shaken and starts to go wobbly. I guess you can say it puts much of what they say in doubt."
Mr. Fuller
Thank you for explanations of the LDS view of the Nicene Creed.
I think your critical point is the wobbliness occurs because of a lack of willingness to "re-interpret with new information". Taking that thread the LDS say such new information exists in the book of mormon etc. While Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox disagree about the meanings of various things in the canon of scripture and about the "traditions" in the end their differences are nowhere near as great as those existing between them and LDS. The events and places of the old and new testament are largely verifiable from archaelogical evidence and other historic contemporary writings. The same cannot be said for Joseph Smith's "revealed" writings in the book of mormon.
Below is a portion of text from an anti mormon website "The Mormon Conspiracy" There is a great deal of information there but I have inserted only the following.
The Mormon Church has spent large sums of money and expended tremendous efforts to prove the archeological truth of the Book of Mormon. But not one shred of evidence has been found to verify this claim. Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a former defender of the faith, who used large monetary grants in an attempt to prove the truth of Joseph Smith’s hoax, became disillusioned in his efforts. Tanner and Tanner write: ... “that he (Ferguson) had come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent 25 years trying to prove Mormonism, [through archeological research] but had finally come to the conclusion that his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away.” 3
3 Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ferguson’s Manuscript Unveiled, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, (Introduction), 3
I would say again the Nicene Creed expresses a common understanding of the Apostles teaching and the meaning of scriptures from real historical experience and the work of the Holy Spirit. From this perspective "traditional Christendom" stands upon a sure foundation vs the false "new information" of mormonism.
Edward
Re: Mormon beliefs about Christ--How about this for a start:
"we shall find that among the specific teachings of the Church respecting the Christ are these:
(1) The unity and continuity of His mission in all ages—this of necessity involving the verity of His preexistence and foreordination. (2) The fact of His antemortal Godship. (3) The actuality of His birth in the flesh as the natural issue of divine and mortal parentage. (4) The reality of His death and physical resurrection, as a result of which the power of death shall be eventually overcome. (5) The literalness of the atonement wrought by Him, including the absolute requirement of individual compliance with the laws and ordinances of His gospel as the means by which salvation may be attained. (6) The restoration of His Priesthood and the reestablishment of His Church in the current age, which is verily the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. (7) The certainty of His return to earth in the near future, with power and great glory, to reign in Person and bodily presence as Lord and King."
This is from the book “Jesus the Christ” by James Talmage, an
Apostle in the early 20th century.
Edward
Taking anti-anything statements from people dedicated to destruction gets us nowhere. I never read or comment on them. They have little credibilty. I do however, respect the work done by legitimate researchers whose agenda is balanced and who are willing to honestly approach thier research subject.
Regarding Talmage, I think you have it right. Certainly Talmage is a respected and even revered scholar in his own right. He is but one. There are others too but he is well regarded.
Irrespective of whom or what you quote, there really are only two issues at the heart of the discussion that matter. All the rest are subordinate issues and if discussed as the primary points, become distractions to what actually matters. The two points of primary importance are #1, whether God has re-opened the canon and #2 whether he has once again called apostles and prophets to lead His church.
These two points are the bedrock upon which Mormonism and all our doctrine are based. That is where we should be going in the discussion. We offer a way to prove of our message to those who are honest seekers. Those who are merely curious or are looking for more ways to prove their own point and are not teachable and have hardened their hearts will not be satisfied regardless of what we say. So for those who are sincere in wanting to know, we provide a way to find out for themselves without the intervention of the understanding of men. But faith precedes the miracle. Without faith no miracle.
Edward
Re: The Book of Mormon
Yes, archeological evidence is scant in the Western Hemisphere. The Book of Mormon is not very specific in its geographical details. There is also a lack of a comparable contemporary history such as we have in the Old World. This could be seen as a way that the book would be shielded from criticism. But remember, the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation of a sacred record started by a group that dwelled in Jerusalem and left around 600 B.C. This left Joseph Smith open to justifiable criticism concerning the linguistic, geographic, and cultural details in the Book of Mormon about these people.
Thus it is in the Old world that we find so much of the corroborating evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Most of the evidence came to light well after the book was published in 1830. Some of the proper nouns that are found throughout the book have turned up in texts discovered since 1830. The path traveled to arrive at the sea from Jerusalem has geographical support. Linguistically the English used favors the case for a translation from a Semetic language. There are literally hundreds of points within in the book to which striking parallels can be demonstrated that have all come to light since its publishing.
Ultimately, a testimony of the truth cannot be obtained from flesh and blood, but only as Peter received it--from our Father in Heaven. But there is much internal and external evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be.