Mormons don't believe in Jesus

[Jeffret]

So I submit to the OP again, what exactly is unchristlike about Mormonisms approach? Besides maybe some particular examples of bishops and SP's being a-holes, what about the process is unchristlike? What about it disqualifies mormons from claiming Jesus cuz I still don't see it.

You're asking a few different questions that are mostly only tangentially related to what I was trying to say. I figured we would get into this area and perhaps I caused it by by my choice of title and opening paragraph but I knew the risks.

Let me see if I can clarify.

I don't think I used the term Christ-like. Or unChrist-like. I purposefully tried to avoid even using the term Christ as I think that frames it differently. I think that gets away from what I was trying to say.

I had forgotten about Stephen Robinson's book, "Believing Christ", which some people mentioned. His ideas are related to what I was trying to say. From the description, "We must not only believe in Christ but also believe him believe that he has the power to exalt us, that he can do what he claims." I wanted to focus more on the message of Jesus than the title.

Ultimately, as I alluded to in another reply, Jesus is pretty much irrelevant to my point and certainly The Christ is unnecessary. At the roots, what I'm talking about are the ideas of repentance, forgiveness, or a generalized notion of atonement. Both self-forgiveness and how the institution handles it. These are also the roots of what Robinson discusses. These ideas are actually more due to Paul than Jesus, though they are far, far from original to Christianity (or Paulinity).

At the core, what I'm really talking about is whether Mormons believe in repentance and forgiveness. Whether they don't solely accept them as intellectual concepts or theological abstracts but whether they actually behave as if they thoroughly believe them. Are they motivating concepts in their lives? I find that they don't.

It's certainly a bit of a judgement, though I'm not doing it for the purpose of denigrating Mormons. It's certainly not intended to compare them to other religions and grade them on a scale. It's for the purpose of understanding the Mormon experience and understanding the things that impacted my life growing up.

Some of the examples I've found the most compelling as I've presented this previously were the ones that alas pointed out, the way that girls are taught about virtue. They are taught that virtue almost solely equates with sexual virginity. The object lessons of the nail in the board, the chewed gum, or the licked cupcake totally deny the Atonement. If we actually believed Jesus (or Paul) we would never teach these and we would instantly recognize them for the travesties that they are. At best they are Old Testament theology and totally at odds with the Gospel ("Good News") of Jesus.

In reading the stories collected by Sam Young, though, I've detected a couple of other themes that demonstrate a lack of motivating belief. One that I hadn't mentioned yet is the number of women who recount that their bishops told them that now that they were no longer sexual virgins (in some unreliable fashion, according to the bishop) that they were essentially forever and eternally damned. They were told that no decent man would ever want them, that they could never be a good mother, and that they would never find a good father to their children. In other words, they are treated as if they cannot attain forgiveness in this world or the world to come. This demonstrates a clear lack of substantive belief in repentance. Another theme is the constant insistence of leaders who insist that matter what the person has done before, no matter the level of repentance, that this current leader must be divulged full details on all prior misdeeds. In contrast, in a U.S. court of law, a person's prior misdeeds has no relevance to their guilt on the current allegation. To a Mormon leader, though, no prior repentance can have any motivating force. Which, by extension, means that this repentance instance is of no consequence once the next leader comes along. If they actually demonstrated a motivating belief in repentance, they might at most inquire briefly about previous confessions, but they certainly wouldn't need all the details of how many fingers he inserted into her when and where and what she was wearing. They would accept previous pronouncements of forgiveness, at least to some degree, and not insist that all previous efforts were null and void and by extension this current one is also. Further, they would treat child molestation and sexual assault victims differently and not insist that they were irreparably harmed and incapable of achieving forgiveness.

One could argue, as many TBMs certainly have, that these are just isolated instances. The reality is that they bring to light what has long been hidden. These approaches are protected by the hierarchy. The system inculcates and propagates them. The leaders frequently behave as if the Atonement is meaningless. They demand submission but don't believe in forgiveness or repentance. Upper church leaders make no attempt to correct these, if they considered them misdeeds in ministry, or to teach them faith in Atonement.

[Jeffret]

So I submit to the OP again, what exactly is unchristlike about Mormonisms approach? Besides maybe some particular examples of bishops and SP's being a-holes, what about the process is unchristlike? What about it disqualifies mormons from claiming Jesus cuz I still don't see it.

Let me try answering these questions more directly.

I think Katie L. lays out some pretty clear explanations in her blog post referenced from this NOM discussion: Critique of Worthiness Interviews

One other thing I might add is that the whole process readily enables and covers up abuse. I find that quite unChrist-like. Admittedly that involves a judgement on my part.

I don't think any of this disqualifies Mormons from claiming to be Christian. I'm not terribly interested in that question. I think it is interesting to find out why some thoughtful Christians question Mormons' Christianity or belief in Christ. Some of them are quite illuminating and instructive, in terms of theology and history. But, Mormons can claim to be Christians all they want as far as I'm concerned. Most of the time it's an entirely pointless exercise on all sides. Tribalist at best.

Much of this comes down to one's perception of the fundamental characteristics of Christ. My thoughts on this are influenced by this excellent book: Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity. To simplify, there are two dominant perceptions of Jesus in the U.S.A. In one, Jesus is Lord: a dominant, authoritarian, demanding, possibly violent, sometimes abusive, wrathful judge and tyrant. The other Jesus is a supportive, loving Savior, who lends succor and healing. Or as Bawer describes it: the Church of Law and the Church of Love. In essence, it's an Old Testament approach vs. a New Testament one, the Law and the Prophets vs. the Gospel. Bawer details how the teachings and actions of Jesus are strongly aligned with the latter and not the former.

Mormons are essentially an Old Testament sort of people. Interestingly, they started out as kind of a new New Testament, a bold new re-imagining of the religion of their day. Especially early on, Joseph's actions and teachings tended to be more opposed to legalism. The BoM is not a very legalistic document. It barely even acknowledges The Law, even in the time period when The Law would have been in force. As Joseph became the civic leader of a growing group of people he instituted more legalisms. As Brigham led the people West, established them in the desert, and ruled as governor more legalism can into existence. These days, the Church is quite legalistic, obsessed with creating hedges around The Law, terrified that someone might think or do something wrong.

If one accepts the construct of Jesus as Judge, more concerned about protecting the ninety and nine than the abuses perpetuated upon the one, then there is nothing unChrist-like about these interviews and these processes. I cannot worship or respect any Jesus like that. I would choose a Jesus who seeks out the one, comforts them, and showers an abundance of love upon them. A Jesus who stands up to power and provides succor to the downtrodden. Given that, then yes, I personally think these interviews are very unChrist-like. As are the object lessons on virtue.

[Jeffret]

Does Jesus demand obedience? I'd argue clearly and unequivocally he does. In order to be a follower of Jesus he demanded obedience. Mormons exercise faith, not by vocally or internally declaring allegiance but by demonstrating that allegiance through obedience. Hence the very mormon position of "we are saved by grace after all we can do".

This position definitely runs contrary to some of Pauline Christianity but does it run contrary to Jesus? Possibly.

This is one of the key ideas at the heart of many of the considerations. Not the only one, but it's a significant one.

There is a substantial split in Christianity as to whether Jesus demands obedience. The dichotomy becomes even greater when we consider what Jesus does when his demands are not met. In one view he becomes wrathful and exacts vengeance. In another view he seeks out the one and pours out more love.

It gets a lot more complicated and nuanced, of course, but this dichotomy is in evidence in much of Christianity.

As you note it's possible to read into Jesus or the Bible pretty much anything anyone wants. I find that the stronger message in the New Testament promotes the Gospel, Jesus overcoming The Law, and commanding only love. This becomes particularly vivid in the conversion of Paul, his personal conversion from The Law into love and grace. Others choose to worship a different Jesus but the Jesus I can respect and learn from does not pour forth his wrath and wreak vengeance on those who do not perfectly obey him. As Paul explains, Jesus doesn't ask us to do that which cannot be done.

[Palerider]

Some of the examples I've found the most compelling as I've presented this previously were the ones that alas pointed out, the way that girls are taught about virtue. They are taught that virtue almost solely equates with sexual virginity. The object lessons of the nail in the board, the chewed gum, or the licked cupcake totally deny the Atonement. If we actually believed Jesus (or Paul) we would never teach these and we would instantly recognize them for the travesties that they are. At best they are Old Testament theology and totally at odds with the Gospel ("Good News") of Jesus.......

-------------

Another theme is the constant insistence of leaders who insist that matter what the person has done before, no matter the level of repentance, that this current leader must be divulged full details on all prior misdeeds. In contrast, in a U.S. court of law, a person's prior misdeeds has no relevance to their guilt on the current allegation. To a Mormon leader, though, no prior repentance can have any motivating force. Which, by extension, means that this repentance instance is of no consequence once the next leader comes along. If they actually demonstrated a motivating belief in repentance, they might at most inquire briefly about previous confessions, but they certainly wouldn't need all the details of how many fingers he inserted into her when and where and what she was wearing. They would accept previous pronouncements of forgiveness, at least to some degree, and not insist that all previous efforts were null and void and by extension this current one is also. Further, they would treat child molestation and sexual assault victims differently and not insist that they were irreparably harmed and incapable of achieving forgiveness.

Regarding the first instance or paragraph, I think earlier leadership taught that once you had comitted a particular sin (even though you had been forgiven) you would always be "behind" or less than someone who hadn't committed that sin. They would always be ahead of you in the Celestial glory game and would receive a greater reward. At least that's what I was taught as a deacon.

This of course negates the true abilities of the Savior's atonement and the parable of the Prodigal Son and the late coming laborers as Alas has already mentioned. Mormon leadership just has to spin those parables like crazy to make them support their doctrine of "competition" rather than "compassion".

But regarding your second paragraph I have quoted, I remember distinctly one of the temple recommend questions being: "Do you have any PREVIOUSLY unconfessed or unresolved sins that need to be addressed?"

As a bishopric we were heavily counseled not to explore or expect any reconfession of matters that had previously been resolved with a previous leader.

As a matter of fact, we lived for a couple of years in Kentucky and in seeking a temple recommend there, I had a counselor in the SP who tried to get me to review any sins that I had possibly been involved in since my mission twenty years earlier. I didn't dare tell him at that moment that he was out of line but gently made him aware that any issues had already been long ago taken care of.

He was exceedingly persistent so I just plainly said I had nothing to confess which I could tell caused him aggravation. He ultimately gave me the recommend but I had the distinct feeling he hadn't gotten his "jollies" for the day. I felt quite certain he was corrupt.

I made both my Bishop and the SP aware of what had happened and there was quite a stink raised about it. The Stake President had to take his counselor down a notch or two and let him know that according to counsel from Salt Lake he had indeed been out of line. Apparently when it became known that this particular counselor had been conducting interview this way there were quite a number, especially women, who came forward to complain.

[alas]

Another way that the church is lacking in understanding of the atonement is the requirement that part of being forgiven is restitution to your victim. Because my father's priesthood leaders really saw nothing that my father could do as far as restitution, they just let him totally off the hook. There were a couple of things that I asked him to do as far as undoing the damage to the family dynamics and he never did them. When he was going to be rebaptised, I pointed out that he never did the couple of things I asked, but of course, they were HARD, and so they couldn't make him do hard things, because the church wanted him rebaptised, no matter how his victims felt about his repentant status.

Christ said it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and be drowned, but the church just can't bring itself to ask him to do anything hard. If the church is going to pretend that it is helping people through the repentance process, then it needs to get the repentance process right. It isn't like buying absolution by purchasing an indulgence, or is it. Pay your tithing to the church and they will forgive anything.

[Jeffret]

As a matter of fact, we lived for a couple of years in Kentucky and in seeking a temple recommend there, I had a counselor in the SP who tried to get me to review any sins that I had possibly been involved in since my mission twenty years earlier. I didn't dare tell him at that moment that he was out of line but gently made him aware that any issues had already been long ago taken care of.

He was exceedingly persistent so I just plainly said I had nothing to confess which I could tell caused him aggravation. He ultimately gave me the recommend but I had the distinct feeling he hadn't gotten his "jollies" for the day. I felt quite certain he was corrupt.

I made both my Bishop and the SP aware of what had happened and there was quite a stink raised about it. The Stake President had to take his counselor down a notch or two and let him know that according to counsel from Salt Lake he had indeed been out of line. Apparently when it became known that this particular counselor had been conducting interview this way there were quite a number, especially women, who came forward to complain.

It sounds like you were very lucky. And if I may use the "p" word, you were privileged.

It sounds like there were a lot of women who had the same experience. If they had tried to complain it is extremely unlikely that they would have been taken seriously, as you were. You were able to get someone to pay attention to you. I suspect you were also lucky in that it was a counselor who was misbehaving. Line leaders tend to get much more benefit of the doubt in the church hierarchy. I'll bet you were also lucky that you didn't have a big sin, next to murder, hanging over your head for the counselor to insist he needed to know your sinful history.


I don't think your experience disproves or diminishes the experiences of others, as recounted in many of the stories Sam has collected. Those people experienced leaders who insisted that the member had to disclose to him all details of any prior misdeed. Even if it is simply a matter of leadership roulette, the problem still exists and is widespread. Church headquarters hasn't addressed the issue. They haven't issued widespread, clear guidelines. Ensuring that repented sins are forgotten is not a priority to them. Partly because they want to know them themselves. In one of Dehlin's interviews on the subject the man describes his experience of confessing in the MTC. He was required to repeat in extreme detail to several people all of his sins. He was told this was absolutely necessary. The total detail was required for the apostles to make their decision.


My claim isn't that no Mormon has faith in the Atonement. That would be much too far and ridiculous. But, as a culture, as a people, and as leadership, they don't really demonstrate an assurance of it.

[Palerider]

I don't think your experience disproves or diminishes the experiences of others, as recounted in many of the stories Sam has collected.

I agree. My intent in posting the anecdote was to show that un-informed, ignorant or rogue leaders do exist out there and will do stupid sh!t. Obviously the church isn't doing nearly enough to clean up such occurrences.

But I do think in light of the temple interview question regarding previously confessed sin and the instructions in the temple recommend book on proper proceedures, they do have an, albeit weak, leg to stand on. Both are quoted below.

"Interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book."

"14. Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?"

But these are relatively recent changes in the church's interview process. Old habits and policies die especially hard in this church. I think some of these changes have occurred because more recent leadership, say in the last 35 years or so, have begun to ever so slightly crack open the door to the concept of Grace.

I doubt it's because of an increased desire to better understand the Atonement. It's much more likely a realization of the abject failure of the Mormon doctrine of perfection and self-salvation.

As you infer, a poor understanding of Christ and His mission. But a great recipe for psycologically enslaving people.

[Palerider]

While doing a little research on this thread, I came across this article on lds.org. from the New Era. To me it shows just how deep set the hooks are for young people and adults regarding purported priesthood authority. Here's an excerpt:

"Some mistakes, especially those regarding immorality, require confession to the bishop BEFORE you can receive the Lord’s forgiveness."

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2013/10/why ... p?lang=eng

Is this twisted.....???

My understanding is that we seek forgiveness from God our Father and we do it through Christ. He and he alone is the great Mediator between God and man. I did some studying awhile back concerning the New Testament word "propitiation".

"Pro" means to put forth or advance. "Pitiation" derives from the same etymology as the word "petition".

Thus it is Christ who goes to God and puts forth a petition for Mercy on our behalf. He is our representative before God. A petition offered because of our belief/faith in Him and a recognition of the plight of all humans; that we try to keep his commandments but ultimately we are imperfect.

To then take the position that some person, a human, can place himself BETWEEN us and Christ.....takes a truckload of hutzpa. It actually defies Paul's writings in Romans 8:38-39.

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, [39] Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The people who do that sort of thing had better have a lot more than a couple of phony books to show for their proof of prophetic calling..... and the fruits of their doctrines had better be spotless.

Also no slippery treasure seeking, no woman chasing or manipulating, no 30 wives, no lying for the Lord, no hiding their history, no changing/evolving doctrines. You better be squeaky clean before you tell me Christ won't forgive me unless I confess to your sorry a$$.

[LaMachina]

This has been an interesting and illuminating thread. I often wish in these sorts of discussions that we could all sit down and enjoy a coffee or a beer and discuss this stuff face to face. Going back and forth in text has some pros but too many cons for my taste...

I appreciate the response Jeffret but find I'm still unconvinced (not that you were trying to convince anyone! )

Jesus is pretty much irrelevant to my point and certainly The Christ is unnecessary. At the roots, what I'm talking about are the ideas of repentance, forgiveness, or a generalized notion of atonement.

This is probably the root of my problem with your approach. I believe I understand what you're saying and think it's probably a valid approach to pondering on these topics and yet... to say Jesus is irrelevant to how a professed Christian views repentance and atonement fails to include the very foundation on which they try to frame their beliefs. Atonement and redemption are certainly not exclusive to Christianity but Jesus almost certainly is. How a Christian defines Jesus directly relates to how they approach this.

I've signed Sam's petition and have read some of their stories but certainly not all. Many are disturbing. Can we fairly say they are representative of how Mormons view atonement? While I'm comfortable saying the interviews, particularly with minors, need to stop, I'm not comfortable with that all encompassing view. Others mileage may vary of course and I could be giving too much benefit of the doubt.

You mention the Jesus you would choose to worship. Fair enough and I do think there is room for that although I find it almost as frustrating as the way someone might choose to view Joseph in a certain light. I find it's also something that frustrates a large proportion of Christians/Mormons, including quite probably Paul. It certainly frustrates Jeffrey Holland as seen in his rant about "smooth gods" that "won't rock the boat". I find Mormonism has been trying to combine Savior Jesus with Judge Jesus more than most and despite Jeffrey's rant he also had this to say:

We learn that when repentance is complete we are born again and leave behind forever the self we once were. To me, none of the many approaches to teaching repentance falls more short than the well-intentioned suggestion that “although a nail may be removed from a wooden post, there will forever be a hole in that post.”

We know that repentance (the removal of that nail, if you will) can be a very long and painful and difficult task. Unfortunately, some will never have the incentive to undertake it. We even know that there are a very few sins for which no repentance is possible.

But where repentance is possible and its requirements are faithfully pursued and completed, there is no “hole left in the post” for the bold reason that it is no longer the same post. It is a new post. We can start again, utterly clean, with a new will and a new way of life.

Anyways, sorry for going on and on, don't want to get into too many tangential areas but I appreciate your responses.

[alas]

I'm with LaMachina, I wish we could sit down together and have this discussion.

I think where we are running into problems is that there are some Mormons who get the whole atonement thing, as demonstrated by Jeffrey Holland in the statement above,

Or

At least they give lip service to it.

I had a friend who had a sleeping around problem as a result of having been sexually abused. I understand it as her trying to take control of her own body back, but only because I understand the damage incest does to a kid. Anyway, she ran into some very judgemental bishops, some very voyeristic bishops, and some unforgiving and unChristlike bishops. Finally, she left the church and found a Christlike pastor, who did understand her issues because he was trained. He explained to her that most Mormons are not really Christian because of a few teachings, but that some really are. Either because they converted to Mormonism or picked up real Christianity from the bible and BoM, or because they do not understand the temple. Anyway, he had three ways that he didn't believe Mormons were Christian. He was exMo and had studied lots more than I had at the time.


1. Too much emphasis on "after all that you can do."

2. Not really accepting that the atonement washes people clean, especially women.

3. The temple being necessary for salvation, and what is in the endowment teaching in the temple about women which turns her husband into her god.

We have kind of talked about #1, so I won't go into it. And There is some inter connectedness between 2&3, so I will just explain my understanding of somebody else's argument.

Many men do not really believe that *women* can ever be washed clean of sexual sin. Once unclean "on the inside" they can never be washed clean through the atonement by cleaning the outside. (And personally, I can't resist adding that men can be washed clean because of their different anamoty) This goes back to Brigham Young and the curse given to Eve, and how women are not really covered by the atonement of Christ, but are saved by having a man marry them AS VIRGINS. And then this man either wants them in his harem or he doesn't. If he wants them, he asks for them by their given name and temple name as in the ceremony at the veil. Doctrin that is taught or still hinted at in the temple and D&C 138. This is not taught openly anymore, but the attitude has survived.

And well the attitude was around before because In the Bible, there is the thing about men having to marry anyone they rape, because the first guy to have sex with her "owns" her for eternity.

The temple reason is connected and goes back to BY doctrine is not Christian, especially not for women because it puts the husband up as the "savior" and god of the woman. The Lord takes the husband through the veil and *her* lord takes the woman through. It puts the man as judging the righteousness of the woman, and the bible says no one but Christ will judge.

The very being exhalted by temple covenants is not Christian, but then Mormons make a distinction between salvation and exaltation.

Anyway, some of this guys arguments go back to things BY said that the church really tries to ignore today but remnants of it all are still in the temple.

Discuss.

[Palerider]

Even though Jeffery is more compassionate than some, he still gets it wrong in some important ways.

Being "changed" into a new person doesn't begin AFTER "repentance is complete". It begins the moment we begin to place our faith in Christ and ask for forgiveness. We begin to enter the healing process which can actually take a lifetime, but we are strengthened by the Spirit to continue in spite of the difficulties.

At the same time we have a knowledge that even in our imperfection, God has made us innocent through the merits of Christ. This is called "Justification". The rest of our lives our faith is evidenced by good works as we become more holy. That's called "Sanctification". It isn't something we merit or earn or even deserve. It's something we BECOME through the Grace of God and Christ.

The LDS leadership wants to codify what constitutes sin and specify the individual terms and conditions of repentance for each infraction. Where is the difference between that and "Saying five Hail Mary's"?

The LDS recipe for repentance may be more difficult for the individual but it still is no guarantee of true repentance or change of heart or overcoming of evil.

Regarding the idiocy about women, their loss or retention of virtue or even their loss or retention of virginity:

This entire thing is easily solved from God's point of view.

God is no respecter of persons....PERIOD.

Anyone, whether male or female, black or white, etc., etc., receives the exact same blessings of forgiveness and reconciliation when they access his Grace through their faith in Christ and strive to keep his commandments. Pretty simple really.

To the degree anyone tries to add to or take away from that offering from God, they begin to fall into His disfavor. As Paul said, they are preaching "another gospel".

[Reuben]

Being "changed" into a new person doesn't begin AFTER "repentance is complete". It begins the moment we begin to place our faith in Christ and ask for forgiveness. We begin to enter the healing process which can actually take a lifetime, but we are strengthened by the Spirit to continue in spite of the difficulties.

At the same time we have a knowledge that even in our imperfection, God has made us innocent through the merits of Christ. This is called "Justification". The rest of our lives our faith is evidenced by good works as we become more holy. That's called "Sanctification". It isn't something we merit or earn or even deserve. It's something we BECOME through the Grace of God and Christ.

You mean, as exemplified in the Book of Mormon with the stories of Alma, Alma the Younger, King Lamoni, and Zeezrom? And like how the Book of Mormon is always very clear on exactly who does the work, consistently suggests that redemption happens immediately or early, and usually talks about salvation in the present tense?

It's all-around a very Christian book, and in that respect very unlike the D&C.

When I still believed in the church's truth claims, I thought that the church might be "under condemnation" for forgetting the Book of Mormon because we had (as a whole) forgotten the lessons of grace in it.

[Jeffret]

Is this twisted.....???

My understanding is that we seek forgiveness from God our Father and we do it through Christ. He and he alone is the great Mediator between God and man. I did some studying awhile back concerning the New Testament word "propitiation".

"Pro" means to put forth or advance. "Pitiation" derives from the same etymology as the word "petition".

Thus it is Christ who goes to God and puts forth a petition for Mercy on our behalf. He is our representative before God. A petition offered because of our belief/faith in Him and a recognition of the plight of all humans; that we try to keep his commandments but ultimately we are imperfect.

To then take the position that some person, a human, can place himself BETWEEN us and Christ.....takes a truckload of hutzpa. It actually defies Paul's writings in Romans 8:38-39.

I think it is pretty twisted. From the beginning of this discussion, I expected you, Palerider, to key into this aspect. This construct is very prominent in Mormonism, once you start looking at it. The Church gives lip service to the role of Christ, but the hierarchy demands that repentance comes through them. They have to know all of your sins so that they can assess what penalties to require and what rewards to apply.

In some ways, Mormonism has become the church that the Reformation forgot. Or the church that forgot the Reformation. One of the key concepts of the Reformation is that the priest does not sit as intermediary between man and god. Nor do the saints. The idea is that an ordinary man can access God the Son directly and he serves as the only intermediary we need. The Mormon Church was certainly born of the Reformation. In a number of his earlier writings Joseph showed evidence of following this idea. His earliest conception of priesthood wasn't so much hierarchical. The priesthood wasn't something restricted to a select few to act as intermediary. Joseph's priesthood was given freely to all men, so that each could act as his own intermediary. But, as Joseph's need for organization and control grew so did the restrictions on what other individuals could do. Brigham codified much of the hierarchy and that has continued into the modern, corporate church. These days, the priest stands between each man and god. Of course, it is worse for women, as they must rely on their husband to represent them to god. Perhaps this sort of thing is inevitable in a hierarchical, patriarchal, control-based organization and Mormonism is in need of a good reformation. (I know some have tried a number of times.)

[Jeffret]

I appreciate the response Jeffret but find I'm still unconvinced (not that you were trying to convince anyone! )

Yeah, I'm really not trying to convince anyone. I'm exploring ideas. I'm trying to share some observations.

Jesus is pretty much irrelevant to my point and certainly The Christ is unnecessary. At the roots, what I'm talking about are the ideas of repentance, forgiveness, or a generalized notion of atonement.

This is probably the root of my problem with your approach. I believe I understand what you're saying and think it's probably a valid approach to pondering on these topics and yet... to say Jesus is irrelevant to how a professed Christian views repentance and atonement fails to include the very foundation on which they try to frame their beliefs. Atonement and redemption are certainly not exclusive to Christianity but Jesus almost certainly is. How a Christian defines Jesus directly relates to how they approach this.

Yes, you are kind of missing what I'm trying to describe. Part of it is that some comments are related to things down one path. Others are related to different paths. The comments about the lack of necessity of Jesus are principally related to some earlier responses that related how these ideas are not original to Christianity and questioned the existence, divinity, or role of Jesus. Those are irrelevant to my observations here. Whether Jesus of Nazareth lived or not can be an interesting discussion, but it's totally unrelated to my comments here.

Part of it is that I'm not so much interested here in what a Mormon thinks or what they intellectually believe. I'm more interested in understanding them through their actions. I'm focused on faith as an action, a motivation for action, not interested in understanding their intellectual beliefs.

It is true that Jesus is of significant important to a Christian. Including the Mormon subset of Christians. But, I'm trying to look at what they do and say to really understand what motivates them. For example, evangelicals used to say that sanctity of marriage was a key criteria, yet their fervent support for the current U.S. president clearly demonstrates that is not their highest priority.

Can we fairly say they are representative of how Mormons view atonement?

Not entirely. When it comes right down to it, we can't say much at all about how Mormons view anything. Pinning down just exactly what is Mormon doctrine is like nailing jello to a tree. We really can't say how Mormons view the Atonement. You can quote some authorities. I can quote some others. Other people can chime in with other quotes. There is no resolution. And that's just in trying to figure out what they say they believe about the Atonement. But, the prevalence of a number of these actions do demonstrate something about how Mormons, culturally and hierarchically, perceive repentance. This certainly doesn't apply to all Mormons, but it does enable us to see some patterns. My initial title definitely overstates my claim, by a lot, but it gets to something of the idea I'm examining.

[LaMachina]

Totally fair Jeffret, I appreciate what you're putting down. Personally I don't care if Jesus existed or not either. I do find that I still care how one is able to justify their beliefs based on the framework of their declared philosophy which I believe you are exploring here. Depending on how many hoops they seem to be jumping I get more and more comfortable in declaring hypocrisy.

My MIL once said to us upon discussing our disappointment with the often pharisaical nature of mormonism that the only thing that matters in the gospel (of mormonism) was love. I called b.s. for many of the reasons discussed here. She struggled to rectify her stance with the church. I've also had similar discussions with mormons who claim to love gays. The cog diss hurts. But Mormons by and large do seem to subscribe to "tough love".

Anyway, I'll say again, very interesting thread.

[Jeffret]

I do find that I still care how one is able to justify their beliefs based on the framework of their declared philosophy which I believe you are exploring here. Depending on how many hoops they seem to be jumping I get more and more comfortable in declaring hypocrisy.

I'm not really trying to understand how someone justifies their beliefs. That's a different discussion, which could also be quite interesting. I'm exploring how Mormons behave. Repentance / forgiveness / atonement can be intellectually challenging concepts. But they are much more difficult to put in practice. Forgiveness of oneself and others is at the core of many therapies, religious and secular. They are essential aspects of many people's religion, for Christians their fundamental perception of Christ. Certainly they're the core of Paul's epiphany and the Pauline gospel. Nevertheless, most people struggle with them.

Hypocrisy would be far too strong of a judgement for what I'm considering here. My intent isn't to call them hypocrites. I would have a hard enough time figuring out what exactly Mormons profess to believe in order to make that sort of a judgement. And that judgement wouldn't do me any good.