NOM

I mentioned in another thread a conversation with an old friend. He couldn't wrap his head around Henry VIII and why someone could be an Anglican. Henry VIII was obviously corrupt, so how could the religion be "true"? He couldn't wrap his head around why because he was thinking like a Mormon.

All Christian religious tradition is based upon a set of foundational axioms with one commonality: Jesus. Mainstream Mormonism has three: apostolic succession in the form of restoration, continuing revelation, and God's current command is greater than a previous command. To be a mainstream Mormon you must believe that (a) Joseph Smith was a prophet and received priesthood from Peter, James, and John, that Thomas Monson is the current prophet, (b) that these prophets receive revelation and direction from God, and (c) any conflict in statements or doctrine doesn't matter, it only matters what is said now. Anglicanism is based upon three (which we call the three legged stool): tradition, scripture, and reason.

We identify more often with religions that have a base similar to our own. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Mormons say (in response to my leaving the church), "if I were to leave, I think I would become Catholic". That is because the base of Catholicism is similar, not identical, to that of Mormonism. Catholicism relies upon apostolic succession (starting with Peter to Linus), that Pope Francis (and all bishops, priests, and deacons) can trace that lineage, and that the bishop of Rome has been and is the vicar of Christ.

The problem really arises when we look at other religions though our own base axioms and judge their members accordingly. It drove me nuts when my Baptist friend would tell me growing up that Mormonism was wrong because we had eternal marriage. He was judging Mormon doctrine based upon a position of sola scriptura, "only from scripture". If a doctrine wasn't based in the bible, then it was clearly an incorrect doctrine. Mormons don't believe in sola scriptura, they believe in continuing revelation.

In the same sense, my friend pointed at Henry VIII as a "proof" that Anglicanism was a false religion because the founder was corrupt. He was judging Anglicanism based on Mormon axioms. The legitimacy of the religion is based in the establishment of the religion. That is a foreign concept to an Anglican.

I find myself judging Mormonism more often than not without shifting my mindset to truly understand. The actions of the LDS church can be understood through the lens, and while there are blaring errors that we see the believer is able to sweep it aside. While some things may get under their skin, like an expensive mall, they still remain faithful because God knows more than they do.

One thing I've noticed about non-faithful Mormon boards is that ability to look at it from the eyes of a Mormon is missing. NOM, while the tone is much more respectful than any other board, often falls into this, where the LDS church makes a move and we all sit furrowing our brow in a vain attempt to understand the situation (nod to Seymour Skinner).

As much as I despise the word "TBM", there need to be more "TBM Whisperers". I don't actually like it when a believer comes onto the boards and starts defending, because there is too much emotion involved. I loved it when Bill Reel would come on here and discuss, because cooler heads prevailed and we all benefited from the honest and open discussion. But someone, who can give the answer and mindset of Mormonism without mocking it and while being fair to Mormons is a place in a discussion among us.

When we miss that portion, we become an echo chamber. Too much echo chamber and we start to really believe that Mormons are idiotic and delusional people while they are not.

The legitimacy of the religion is based in the establishment of the religion. That is a foreign concept to an Anglican.

Interesting. I would wager the vast majority here reject Mormonism because they now reject the establishment of it. Honestly, in some ways I reject religion because I find all their establishments to be a little shady. For sure I've never given Anglicanism much thought because, to me, it seemed a religion established on the particular convenience required by Henry VIII. But very interesting...maybe why mormonism has the reputation of creating atheists. A reputation I've never fully bought into but interesting.

Too much echo chamber and we start to really believe that Mormons are idiotic and delusional people while they are not.

Amen.

I've noticed the same thing. When I was talking with my bro. in law about the Presbyterian Church I attend, his first question was, "where do they get their authority?" I explained that our pastor probably felt a calling from God to pursue his calling, and then pursued that calling with education, ordination, etc. I sensed it didn't seem reasonable to a Mormon who had been indoctrinated into the line/chain of priesthood authority concept. It reminded me of a Boyd Packer talk where he used the metaphor about the folly of a person playing only one key on the gospel keyboard (I think Packer called it a gospel hobby)until it went out of tune. Actually, Mormons do the very thing Packer was warning about, except they pick the authority key, and a few other keys, and tend to ignore certain other keys like grace, God's unconditional Love, etc.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:38 am I've noticed the same thing. When I was talking with my bro. in law about the Presbyterian Church I attend, his first question was, "where do they get their authority?" I explained that our pastor probably felt a calling from God to pursue his calling, and then pursued that calling with education, ordination, etc. I sensed it didn't seem reasonable to a Mormon who had been indoctrinated into the line/chain of priesthood authority concept. It reminded me of a Boyd Packer talk where he used the metaphor about the folly of a person playing only one key on the gospel keyboard (I think Packer called it a gospel hobby)until it went out of tune. Actually, Mormons do the very thing Packer was warning about, except they pick the authority key, and a few other keys, and tend to ignore certain other keys like grace, God's unconditional Love, etc.

It's ironic that the path to authority (IE feeling the call to God and acting on it) in the Presbyterian church or other protestants is the same as we find in the BOM with Alma. It isn't until later after the notion of priesthood authority developed into a "chain" based on laying on of hands that we see the switch in interpretation of those scriptures.

Good point about Alma the Elder. With typical LDS thinking he should have been visited by an angel to give him the priesthood.

I appreciate your thoughts here, document. I find it helpful to remember that a religious tradition is more than just a set of propositions that can be falsified and a history that can be critically examined. It's an identity and a framework for living, or at least it's woven throughout those things.

If I find myself asking how I could have possibly accepted or held on to a particular belief when it seems ridiculous now, maybe that's a sign that I've drifted too far to empathize or approach things objectively. It's not as if I magically became more intelligent in questioning or abandoning a particular belief. And I'm not really that different from someone who holds that belief, given that I myself did not too long ago.

document wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:30 am I mentioned in another thread a conversation with an old friend. He couldn't wrap his head around Henry VIII and why someone could be an Anglican. Henry VIII was obviously corrupt, so how could the religion be "true"? He couldn't wrap his head around why because he was thinking like a Mormon.

The astonishing hubris of this attitude is obviously lost on this believing Mormon. The cult of personality surrounding Joseph Smith has blinded this man to a degree that would make irony blush.

To me, the answer is, "Anglicans worship Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, not Henry VIII. King Henry VIII may have been a principal founder of the Church of England, but he was never considered a prophet or theologian in any respect. Thinking that a Christian church is not viable strictly because one of the founders was a miscreant entirely misunderstands the basic Christian message of Jesus."

Mormons should understand this idea since one of lamest anti-Mormon claims is that Mormons worship Joseph Smith. The glaring difference with the Anglican church is that Joseph Smith is considered a prophet and theologian. The LDS hierarchy has spent so much time and effort protecting the legacy of Joseph Smith. At this point the members are blinded by directly equating the character of a leader with the doctrine held by the believers. This turns into crushing cognitive dissonance once a believer discovers some of the ridiculous activities of Joseph Smith.

Side note:

Anglicans generally don't consider Henry VIII the founder. The general feeling is that Elizabeth I was the founder of Anglicanism.

Henry VIII - Turned from Rome, Catholic in all but name
Bloody Mary - Back to Rome, fully Catholic
Elizabeth I - Turned from Rome, Protestant, yet Catholic

That phrase, "Protestant, yet Catholic" is key. That balance was struck by Elizabeth. Henry VIII was no protestant, he just wanted a divorce. Elizabeth was a reformer and protestant.

But even Elizabeth was not a strict religionist, either. Her balance between protestant and Catholic was highly political as well as religious. But it ran far deeper than, "let me marry someone else".

document wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:53 pm Side note:

Anglicans generally don't consider Henry VIII the founder. The general feeling is that Elizabeth I was the founder of Anglicanism.

Henry VIII - Turned from Rome, Catholic in all but name
Bloody Mary - Back to Rome, fully Catholic
Elizabeth I - Turned from Rome, Protestant, yet Catholic

That phrase, "Protestant, yet Catholic" is key. That balance was struck by Elizabeth. Henry VIII was no protestant, he just wanted a divorce. Elizabeth was a reformer and protestant.

But even Elizabeth was not a strict religionist, either. Her balance between protestant and Catholic was highly political as well as religious. But it ran far deeper than, "let me marry someone else".

Thanks for providing some better context than I had known before.