A follow-up by Jerry Thomas

Last week, Jerry Thomas offered a comparison of Mormon and Eastern Orthodox Christian temple theology. A reader by the name of Christian Piper offered a thoughtful critique. Here is Jerry's response:

Rather than respond to Christian Piper’s interesting observations via comments, I am responding with another posting. My response enlarges on the themes presented quite elliptically in the original post. 

First, you object to my breaking the arcana disciplina, the ancient promise among Christians not to speak of the Mystery, even avoiding mention that bread and wine were involved, let alone the theology of the “metabole,” the method, whatever it may be, by which the believer receives Christ’s flesh and blood in the Eucharist. While it is interesting to note that both the Divine Liturgy and the endowment are shrouded in mystery, the cat has been out of the bag so long for Christians that we forget even that it exists, as we constantly have to field questions about this topic. Since I openly discussed the theology of the veil being Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist as the fulfillment of our participation in the Temple—which is the most sacred thing I believe, the heart of it all—I thought that LDS wouldn’t mind “taking the lid off” of their rites, as has been done with Christian rites by hostile readers for many, many centuries, and comparing the Orthodox understanding of crossing the veil and the LDS understanding, which could not be accomplished without examination of the key moment in the central rite, secret or not.

Secondly, I agree that increasing understanding of the role of temples and how that became Christian liturgy makes Mormonism more like Orthodoxy than it is like other Christian faiths. Thus, the thing you like about Mormon temples, their exclusiveness, applies to the Orthodox as well. To “hide the Mystery” we’ve erected an entire battery of walls, screen, veils, curtains, and doors, but in Holy Communion all of those come down, and only those deemed worthy by a less rigid, but by no means less effective, policing of the matter by the clergy are allowed to approach and receive. Orthodoxy, while open to all to worship with us, maintains a tight control on who is actually “in the Church,” which means receiving Holy Communion.

I am from a Masonic family, as well as a Mormon family. My son is an active Mason. I understand that a direct comparison between the initiatory rites all Masons go through to become a Master Mason and the LDS endowment does not extend to the text. This is why I mentioned specific elements. I was undergirding my thesis that something changed between Kirtland and Nauvoo and we know among the things that changed was Joseph moving from not being a Mason to being a Mason. The Masonic rituals sparked his prophetic imagination and developing the endowment was part of an entire new program he was developing at the time of his death that was to culminate in his receiving publicly what had already been done in private, proclaiming Joseph Smith to be the “King of Israel.” Between Kirtland and Nauvoo, something happened.

As to your last point, I do think that not invoking the Holy Name of God when one passes through the veil in the Holiest Place is not in keeping with Temple Tradition. The only time in the First Temple when anyone entered the Holiest Place was on the Day of Atonement. And then only after sacrificing a goat with a sign on it reading, “YHWH,” and eating its raw flesh and drinking its blood, does the high priest, now bearing a sign saying “YHWH,” for it is YHWH’s blood that is shed and it is YHWH who enters the Holiest Place with His Blood, does the high priest dare to enter beyond the veil, bearing the blood and the incense, and stand before the Cherubic Throne. Now this action became the action of each and every Christian when receiving Holy Communion. Now each Christian bears Jesus’s Name (the Saving Name of God) and acts as a high priest in Israel, even infants, and eats of the flesh and blood of the bloodless sacrifice instituted by the Lord Himself. I find it quite odd that the endowment fails to invoke the Holy Name of Jehovah (keeping with endowment terminology) while crossing through the veil.

The Holy Name of God has power and is to be used sparingly and appropriately is a lesson we learn from Scripture and from the practice of the Second Temple to only utter YHWH’s Holy Name aloud on the Day of Atonement. The Name and Atonement go together. Leaving it out at the very moment when the Atonement is being ritualized does raise my eyebrow, for one. Although I don't know, nor can anyone know, why the Holy Name of God is lacking in the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, I can hazard a guess. Consistent with Joseph Smith's theological tendencies towards the end of his life, it seems clear that he was moving to a concept of God that we might call "transpersonal." It wasn't God the Father Himself who was "eternal," it was the "Priesthood," the culmination of which was the "Priesthood of God." In the Second Token the "mystery" is revealed: there is no Creator God but only an eternal "priesthood" that births the "gods."

Guest Post: "Health in the Navel: A Comparison of Mormon and Orthodox Christian Temple Theology" by Jerry Thomas

I am very excited to share with you a post by fellow Mormon-to-Orthodox convert, Jerry Thomas:

One unique feature of the LDS Church, especially considering its time and place of origin, is its insistence on the importance of temples. When the Saints were sacrificing in Kirtland to build the first Temple it was because the Lord had promised them an “endowment” with “power” upon completion of the temple. In Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph described the experience he had with Oliver Cowdery of seeing and hearing Jesus announce: “7 For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house. 8 Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house.” The interesting feature of this “endowment” is that it lacked any of the features of the later “endowment” as developed in Nauvoo under clear Masonic influence. The vision of Christ that Joseph had in Kirtland, however, was immediately following the Lord’s Supper, the key event in the dedication.
Although the first Mormons got their ideas about temples from the Holy Bible, the Orthodox Church has been building and worshiping in temples since the founding of the Church. A true temple, in Orthodox understanding, is where “two or three” are gathered in Christ’s Name for the purpose of participation in the Holy Mysteries, particularly Holy Communion. These impromptu temples came first, often in people’s houses, and only later did the Church become established enough to build buildings.
In the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, with the Lord’s Supper as the central rite, we find ourselves well within the common Christian tradition. It is with the further development of the “endowment” as a separate rite, with the Lord’s Supper still celebrated in the temples on occasion, but no longer the centerpiece, that we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory in the traditions of Christianity. This new rite contained features taken directly from Masonic ceremonies, including the handshakes and the Five Points of Fellowship, as well as the penalties. Many of these elements were eliminated or downplayed in the 1990 revision of the endowment.

Even though the Lord’s Supper was eliminated from the central temple rite, “washing and anointing” were added. These can be seen as a repeat of baptism and confirmation (by anointing, as in the Orthodox Church) or both can be seen as a continuation of the rites accompanying the Day of Atonement when the high priest had to bathe in the ritual bath and vest to participate in the rite.  
In the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the Lord (as His Body and Blood) comes out of the veil to be among His people (through their participation in Holy Communion). In the LDS Endowment, the opposite happens. The participant enters the Celestial Room through the veil after reciting the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The text of this is apparently the most sacred part of the Endowment, as it is often eliminated even in “exposes” of the Endowment. A careful examination of this text, then, is in order to understand what is happening in the Endowment. “Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews. Power in the priesthood be upon me and my posterity through all generations of time and throughout all eternity.” First, one notices that neither God nor Christ are invoked to cross through the veil! The first part seems to be an invocation for health and the second part invokes “the priesthood,” not God or Christ as the origin of the “power” to be passed on through all time. Second, while the Scripture ties together the “veil” and Christ’s “flesh,” making clear that Holy Communion is how one “enters through the veil” ([Heb 10:20 KJV] By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh) and this connection persisted at Kirtland, the Nauvoo endowment removes even mention of Christ from the action of entering through the veil. Third, while it is clear that the Scriptures are being quoted in the first part ([Pro 3:8 KJV] “It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones”) is there a Scriptural basis for the remainder? Job’s description of the mythical monster “Behemoth” is the only possible Scriptural basis for the remainder of the first sentence: “[Job 40:16-17 KJV] Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.” Here we find “strength,” “loins,” and “sinews” together, the only place this happens in the Holy Bible. The second sentence of the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood may be alluding to these Bible verses: 
[Exo 29:9 KJV] And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. [Exo 40:15 KJV] And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. Here we find the idea of the “priest’s office” or the “priesthood” being “everlasting throughout their generations,” reminiscent of “the power of the priesthood” invoked to “be upon me and my posterity for time and all eternity.”  
In the New Testament and subsequent Orthodox teaching “priesthood” refers to several different concepts: 1) the Aaronic priesthood of the Second Temple 2) the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ and 3) the “priesthood of all believers,” which is participation through the Mysteries in Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood. In later developments, a fourth meaning was added, the “priesthood” of the Christian clergy, which priesthood derives from the “priesthood of all believers,” which priesthood is Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood. There is no role for the Aaronic priesthood, a hereditary priesthood, in the New Testament nor in the subsequent Christian Church. The titles, however, of the Aaronic priesthood were incorporated into the Church with “bishops” being “high priests,” “presbyters” being “priests,” and “deacons” being “Levites.”
Thus, the present-day Orthodox Church has buildings called temples with a “holy place” and a “prosthesis” (Table for the Showbread). Often the “holy place” is divided from the rest of the temple by a veil and an icon screen or wall. It is from this place that several “entrances” are done—with the gospel book before the readings and with the prepared sacrament before the blessing, culminating in the entrance of the Lord Himself as His Body and Blood during Holy Communion. It was following Holy Communion when Joseph Smith saw Christ in the Kirtland Temple. This is what one would expect based on the Holy Bible and Christian tradition. Between Kirtland and Nauvoo something changed and Holy Communion ceased being the culmination of the Holy Mysteries in Mormonism. Instead, an odd rite with Masonic roots culminating with an entrance of the believer into the “celestial kingdom” while invoking the power of the “priesthood,” presumably the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ, without reference to the Holy Name of Jesus or to Christ or to God, has taken the place of Holy Communion in Orthodox Christianity.

"Was there a Great Apostasy?" A great review from Soul Device

Some kind of “apostasy narrative” is required to explain why a group that did not exist for nearly 2,000 years can consider itself the true expression of Christianity. Obviously, if the Church founded by Jesus did not go into apostasy, there would be no excuse to create a new group or “restore” what was “lost.” Unlike most Christian sects that attempt to locate themselves (in some form) throughout Christian history, the Mormons accept and explain their non-existence by claiming the Church founded by Jesus Christ disappeared from the Earth shortly after its creation.

I wrote previously of the problem of the Latter-day Saint (LDS or Mormon) story of a “great apostasy” of the early ChurchHERE. Now I would like to expose some of the errors of the primary text used by the LDS in support of such an idea: Mormon Apostle James E. Talmage’s book The Great Apostasy: Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History (hereafter: “TGA”). Written in 1909, the point of Talmage’s work was to present “the evidence of the decline and final extinction of the primitive Church” as evidenced by “scriptural record and in secular history.” The reason this alleged apostasy is so important to Mormons is that it under girds their movement’s very existence. This is admitted on the very first page of TGA:

If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims. (TGA, Preface – emphasis added)

Read more at: http://souldevice.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/was-there-a-great-apostasy/

Mormon Deification and Orthodox Theosis

The LDS church recently published an article that sheds light on the the LDS view of becoming like God. This effort to clarify a difficult and misunderstood aspect of the tradition is laudable and I look forward to seeing what else the LDS church has to offer in the future. That said, I was moved to write this post by the way in which the author uses the Early Church Fathers to make his/ her case and the comparison of the LDS tradition to Eastern Orthodoxy.

First referenced is this passage from Irenaeus' Against Heresies:

 "For it is thus that you will both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and will be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and steadfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."

Comparing LDS and Orthodox Christian views of deification is a wonderful example of the importance of defining terms and theological background since both faiths can endorse the statement "our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself" while understanding it completely differently.

Members of the LDS faith believe that God the Father and the Son are both beings with an immortal body of flesh and bone. One might say the Father and Christ are the perfection of human evolution in the LDS view. Thus when a Mormon says that Christ died so humans can become like Him they mean this in a much more literal way than traditional Christians (Christians who believe the faith as stated in the Nicene Creed); they will be not only just like Christ, but also the Father who has a physical body akin to theirs.

To understand why traditional Christians understand Irenaeus' statement, and deification in general, differently than the LDS faith, one must understand how they view the Holy Trinity. For traditional Christians, God is the foundation of all that exists, the wellspring from which everything is created and sustained; He who is everywhere present, filling all things. Thus God is not just different from us in degree (as is the case in the LDS faith) but different in kind. He is not constrained by the spacio-temporal aspects of our material existence because he is the creator and sustaining force of our universe. We cannot ever be just like God because, by our nature, we are forever dependent upon him.

That said, God's creation reveals to us certain aspects of His nature, and this is especially true in the case of humans who are the pinnacle of God's creative work. In the traditional Christian view, when God says "let us make man in our image" He is referring to the mental and spiritual characteristics of humanity which makes it different from God's other creatures not only in degree, but in kind. Our self-consciousness, will, and immortality are the ways in which our image is similar to God's.

It is tempting to interpret the use of the term "image" as used in Genesis in a materialistic way. After all, the images we encounter most often are physical depictions. However "image" or "likeness" need not refer to physicality. If my mother tells me I remind her of her grandfather, this does not necessarily mean I resemble him physically. It may be my voice or personality that makes our "images" similar. 

Likewise, Irenaeus leaves open to interpretation what he means when he states Christ becomes what we are so we might become what He is. Mormons interpret this in a more expansive manner; we will become exactly what Christ is, save for unique physical and personality characteristics. For traditional Christians, Irenaeus is telling us that through Christ we too can become sons and daughters of God, but sons and daughters that will always be different in kind and dependent upon the Grace of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Mormons and Orthodox Christians both believe that we can become like Christ, but mean very different things. The LDS Church believes we can be like Christ in both His human and His divine nature, whereas Orthodox Christians believe, being dependent material creations, we share only in Christ's human nature, a human nature which itself can be perfected or divinized.

Change of name and intention

After a long period of discernment I have become an Orthodox catechumen. Having, in a sense, become more settled in my journey (although recognizing the journey has just begun) I have decided to steer this blog in a direction different than it has taken in the past. As I am now convinced of Orthodoxy's truth I have much less interest in actively criticizing the merits of the LDS faith and other faiths. I also question what I can offer that has not already been provided by better voices. I hope to offer something a bit less prevalent in the blogosphere- my perspective as a 6th generation cradle Mormon who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. I imagine this will primarily consist in commentary on things Mormonism and Orthodoxy, especially where there is overlap between the two.

From here on out my blog will be known as Mormon to Orthodox rather than Comparative Religion to fit its new direction.

In Christ,

MtO

Personal revelation (subjective experience) as the basis of conviction.

Living in an area where much of the population is LDS provides a unique atmosphere where discussions on topics related to religious belief often arise. A few of my closest LDS friends and I have pressed one another on such matters to points that might make others feel uncomfortable or violated. Both sides usually begin these conversations by appealing to less subjective factors like history, science, and philosophy. Occasionally, though, a Mormon friend eventually claims that their primary, and sometimes only reason for believing rests on what they call a personal revelation or personal witness. I can sympathize with such claims since I too see experience as essential to one's spiritual life; however I am convinced that insurmountable problems arise for those who rely on subjective bases alone or when other factors clearly contradict their interpretation of their subjective experience.

For instance, imagine there are three women, one Muslim, one Christian, and one Jewish. They all claim that they know their religion is true because God has shown this truth to them through personal revelation. However, all three of these faith traditions have competing claims. If Jesus is in fact the divine Son of God, then Islam and Judaism are, at least in this regard, in error. Likewise, if Muhammad is God's last prophet, then Judaism and Christianity are in error. Put simply, not all of these women can be equally correct in their convictions. Figuring out whether a faith tradition is true can be difficult (some might say impossible) work, so the three women might settle for saying "my faith is right for me, but maybe yours is right for you." Under such a view religious affiliation becomes little more significant than one's preferred color or food. Additionally, the claim of the LDS faith and many other faith traditions is a strong, authoritative one. The LDS faith, according to its official doctrines, claims not to be just one of many different-but-equal options, but the most true religion. Such a claim, as any good debater or philosopher knows, places the burden of proof on the LDS faith.

"The LDS church is true because the Holy Spirit revealed to me that it is so" and similar claims cannot be used to surpass this burden of proof since such a claim is relevant only to the subject making the claim. One can always fall back on "try it for yourself and then you will see," but what if the individual challenged does try and still isn't convinced? I doubt members of the LDS faith would be comfortable concluding that this disproves their faith tradition.

Authoritative claims require proofs or arguments that are understandable and sound to all parties involved in a dialogue. I invite LDS voices to respond to my post so that I might better understand why Mormons stay Mormon and so I might be corrected where I have made errors in this post.

"Why do I do what I do?" or, "What motivates my decisions?"

The recent discussion in the comments section of a previous post has me wanting to further explore why exactly it is we make the decisions we do and incorporate these thoughts into the universalism debate.

As far as rational humans are concerned, I believe the motives an individual has for choosing x are quite limited. Taking ice cream as an example, an individual will choose or not choose a flavor depending on the foreseen consequences of such a choice. In scenario A, an individual chooses mint chocolate chip because he sees it as a good or desirable choice. Perhaps it is his favorite flavor, or perhaps he chooses it because he has never tried it before and wants to expand his horizons. Regardless of his motives, what we can almost certainly say is that he will not make a choice that he sees as harmful. If our subject knows mint chocolate ice cream causes him to break out in a painful rash, if it tastes like bile, or any other of a number of unpleasant possibilities, it is very probable, if not guaranteed, that he will not select that specific flavor.

Rational human beings do not typically choose things that are undesirable simply because they are undesirable, and as the level of undesirability increases, the likelihood that it will be chosen decreases. Our very nature and biological make-up screams out at us to avoid such decisions. As you read this you may think to yourself "I could go make an undesirable choice right now if I so wished." Perhaps you have in mind touching a hot stove and you think this would prove my case wrong, but keep in mind that, while burning your hand in and of itself is undesirable, the further satisfaction of winning an argument turns this action into one that is desirable. I am confident that you would not intentionally hold your hand to a hot stove if not for some sort of satisfaction. Our motives cannot be separated from the berceived outcomes and subsequent benefits that arise from such a decision.

Let us now incorporate the above into the question of who goes to hell and why they go to hell. Within what may be called the high church circle, comprised of (but not limited to) Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians is an idea that God does not forcefully send souls to hell against their own will. Instead, those who find themselves in that most horrendous of states are there by their own choosing. As C.S. Lewis states in The Great Divorce, the gates of hell are locked from the inside, by those who choose by their own volition to remain in their suffering.

This view is a lot more easy to swallow than the idea that God forces us into the abyss against our own will, but upon closer examination I believe it may make less sense. If we hold that to really choose something, in a "you are responsible for your decisions" sort of way, is to understand what you are choosing, it becomes difficult to imagine how choosing eternal damnation could even be a possibility. If we say that hell isn't actually that bad, perhaps akin to Mormonism's Telestial kingdom where souls can still be happy, then the choice seems much more plausible, but most Christians want to maintain that hell consists only of suffering, perhaps the worst sufferings imaginable. Could an individual in possession of their faculties really choose endless suffering?

Perhaps one could fall into eternal suffering as a result of insanity, but would a good God allow such insanity to persist? Perhaps an individual could initially reject God but eventually regret his decision. Does God's mercy and willingness to forgive cease after death? Perhaps we lose our ability to choose after death. Without free will, can we still be considered human?

We make our choices based on perceived desires. Seeing that the characteristics of hell make it less desirable than eternal joy or peace it necessarily follows that a rational human being will not make a decision that will leave them without satisfaction.

I would like to note that my inclination towards Christian Universalism is not rooted in its being easy. I have altered my opinion of difficult things before after considering the arguments for and against (abortion, homosexuality, pornography, masturbation). I am a universalist for the same reason I am pro life. I considered the arguments both for and against and found universalism more compelling, both intellectually and emotionally. That being said, I strive to be open to changing my perspectives if they are false and for this reason I welcome any comments on this matter.