Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikJohnson
A spin-off from the Calvinism thread—
The subject of Christian history and of the Reformation in particular was a fairly rare occurrence in Priesthood and Gospel Doctrine classes, back when I was LDS. But when it did arise, the instructor would invariably make a statement that the Reformation was “inspired.” Presumably this is what it said in the lesson manual, because no one ever bothered to justify the claim by explaining what men like Martin Luther and John Calvin actually stood for.
For a long time, I was guilty of apathy towards the subject. But a few years ago, that began to change and I started looking into the question.
What I learned surprised me in two ways. First, I found the doctrines that the Reformers espoused were quite persuasive and consistent with my own reading of the Bible. And second, the LDS position was almost always better aligned with the Roman Catholic position that the Reformers were repudiating.
From an LDS doctrinal point of view—it was hard to see the Reformation as anything but a further regression into “apostasy,” a further falling away from the “truth.” It seemed a complete contradiction to me that LDS would call the Reformation and the Reformers “inspired”—when they would dispute their every assertion.
|
I've made something of a hobby of the study of the comparative religion and religious history. Of all the Western Christian religions, Catholicism is the most different from LDS in almost every aspect. Top-down authoritative organization and the belief in truth beyond the text of the Bible are two things that fit, but even in those we are immensely different. So to call the LDS faith similar to Catholic is really quite a stretch in my opinion, but you are welcome to think what you will. I admire good Protestants and Catholics alike, and I don't think it's terribly important to try to vilify either of them in the process of making a point.
When tossing out the "you're too Catholic" a word of caution seems appropriate. The Reformers had a broad variety of understandings, but the central uniting idea was that Catholicism had gotten it wrong -- thought they varied a great deal on describing exactly what Catholicism had been wrong about. It is well nigh impossible for such a broad and varied movement to not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" on at least a few occasions.
Decently educated Latter day Saints are no different than well educated Protestants and Catholics. They know their history and can tell you what Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others stood for. The vast majority of LDS, Protestants and Catholics have heard some of the names but most could not tell you a blessed thing about any of them. That's a human awareness problem, not an LDS problem.
Quote:
I’m curious if any LDS out there would agree with my assessment. And yes, I understand that there were social and political consequences with the Reformation and that these were largely positive developments, setting the stage for greater individual liberty and even economic freedom. But the ends don’t justify the means. God can use bad for good (see Genesis 50:20)—but we would never say this makes bad things “inspired” (whether doctrines or deeds).
So what do LDS say about the specific doctrines of the Protestant Reformation? Were the doctrines themselves inspired, or were they merely the vehicle God chose to bring about societal change and political reforms and to set the stage for a “restoration” via Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery?
For those needing some background to answer the question, a summary of the Reformers basic theological beliefs can be found in the “Five Solas” (and once again Wikipedia comes through with a succinct and balanced entry).
- Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
- Sola fide ("by faith alone")
- Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
- Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
- Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
--Erik
|
I'm running out of time to go into this further.
"Presumably this is what it said in the lesson manual, because no one ever bothered to justify the claim by explaining what men like Martin Luther and John Calvin actually stood for." As I've already stated, the ignorance to religious history is not limited only to the LDS faith. On average, I think Latter Day Saints are more aware and more educated than the vast majority of other Christian faiths.
Case in point: I served my mission in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is predominantly Baptist. As I'm a hobbiest at religious history and a history geek in general, I knew about the origins of the Baptist Church. So when Baptists would tell me, "Your church was started by that John Smith guy." I would reply, "No, that was your church." They never understood it because they had virtually no awareness of the foundation of their own religion. But the fact remains that:
a.) John Smyth effectively founded the Baptist religious denomination in 1609.
b.) You can almost never find a Baptist who is even remotely aware of that fact.
Ignorance to religious history exists in every relgion, not just ours.