Before 2001: The validity of Mormon Baptism
Posted by guest on July 17th, 2006
[Ed. Note: The following is a partial survey of Catholic writing on the Mormon baptism question before the authoratative ruling reached in 2001. It was compiled by Ted Jones, a Mormon historical researcher, and posted here with his permission. By posting this here, I do not mean to contest the precedences that the Father Ladaria commentary sees as important. Rather the summaries provided by Mr. Jones supplement and support the notion that the Catholic Church became increasingly aware of unconventional Mormon beliefs over time.]
Prior to the Vatican’s announcement, that church’s theologians had vacillated regarding whether LDS baptism was valid or not.
Over a hundred years ago the Reverend Charles C. Starbuck wrote, with reference to some [then] recent Protestant literature, “that they treat the Church of Rome as if she were, in the open, popular sense, a sect, established, like Gnosticism of old, or Mormonism in our time, in the distinct consciousness of being a deviation from genuine Christianity….,†in Starbuck, “Unintelligent Treatment of Romanism,†Bibliotheca Sacra 39 (1882): 1-37, at page 3.
In the mid-1940’s there were several indications that LDS baptism was not valid: see Homiletic and Pastoral Review 45 (1945): 859-60; 46 (1946): 52, 299-300. Contrarily, see C.A. Ropella, “Bearing of Non-Catholic Baptisms on Matrimonial Causes,†The Jurist 11 (1951): 190: LDS baptisms are valid, because the baptism produces an internal effect upon the soul; J.P. Donovan, “Are Protestant Baptisms Ordinarily Valid?,†The American Ecclesiastical Review 74 (1926): 175: LDS baptism is valid, because it teaches that in baptism sins are sacramentally remitted.
In February 1985 Cardinal Franz Konig in Rome stated that the Mormons were to be placed in the same category as Satan worshipers. According to Father Franc Rode, undersecretary of the Secretariat for Non-Believers, they were being placed, not with the religions of the world but with the sects, because they mix Christian and non-Christian elements: “they cannot be considered a Christian Church.†He said they are “inspired by the Old Testament but reject many elements of the New Testament,†in Origins (National Catholic Documentary Service) 14 (1984-5): 692-5.
Two recent Catholic writers have indicated that the LDS baptism is a validly performed ritual, given its trinitarian nature, and those LDS who choose to become Catholic need not receive adult baptism; their previous one was valid. Both scholars have doubts however about some of the doctrines taught by the Latter-day Saints, especially as regards the nature of deity, and the destiny of humankind.
Craig A. Cox had some doubts, but “to be responsible ecumenically…any doubts about Mormon doctrine must be resolved from a close examination of the statements of Mormon leaders themselves, official Mormon texts, and the reasoned assessments of serious scholars in the field.†[Craig A. Cox, “The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,†The Jurist 49 (1989): 679-692, page 684, note 20.]
Cox quotes from “an important canonical investigation into marriages as practiced†by the LDS Church; Charles F. Taylor, Mormon Marriage and its Canonical Consequences (Rome 1959) concluded that LDS baptism ought to be considered valid, page 139, in Cox 686-7.
Cox concludes: “Ideally, future discussions between Catholic and Latter-day Saints leaders could resolve the ambiguities and doubts that remain. However, given the state of Catholic-Mormon relations, such discussions are not likely in the near future.†[Cox, 692.]
After citing Joseph Smith’s teachings that “God himself was once as we are now,†and that mortals “have got to learn how to be gods yourselves,†Owen Cummings wrote: “From a Christian point of view this is nonsense, and yet it is, in some ways, like an undigested and acontextual version of the patristic adage that God became man that man might become divine. There is a minimal resemblance to Christian doctrine.†[Owen F. Cummings, “Is Mormon Baptism Valid?,†Worship (St. Johns University, Collegeville, Minn.) 71 (1997): 146-153, at page 153]
We need to consider some words written recently by William Shea of St. Louis University: “the anti-Catholic literature characteristically argues that Catholicism is not a form of Christianity, that, like Mormonism, it is a non-Christian sect or cult which uses some of the accompaniments of Christianity,†Shea, “Catholic Reaction to Fundamentalism,†Theological Studies 57 (1996): 264-85, at page 268, note 11.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Check out this exchange between an inquiring bishop and then-Cardinal Ratzinger: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a37.htm .
July 19th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
The idea that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was established “in the distinct consciousness of being a deviation from genuine Christianity”, is one of the most positively ridiculous statements I have ever read.
No one is compelled to believe that our doctrine is correct, but the idea that we ourselves do not believe the our Church to be the genuine, true, legitimate, restored Church of Jesus Christ with full apostolic authority is beyond the pale - indeed a most serious misrepresentation. So the question is: Was Rev. Starbuck dishonest, careless, misinformed, or just plain stupid?
I have made a defense of this accusation before, over at Defensor Veritatis, but a short examination of Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, the first part of which consists of the founding articles of the Church of Christ on that date. It is worth noting that the Church was (re)established on a day we hold to be both the birth day and resurrection day of Jesus Christ.
I quote in full, verses 1-36:
July 19th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Mark,
Is there another choice? Was he really trying to convey …
Why would he even presume that? He didn’t. Examine this from his perspective. Remember the context. His letter was intended for consumption within the Catholic Church, not for universal consumption.
Let me now take the quote and add a bit to it.
“in the distinct consciousness of being a deviation from (what we believe to be) genuine Christianityâ€
Now that statement is true, is it not? And is this not the point he was trying to convey?
And since you were not intended by the author to read that statement, and it was in fact only intended for fellow Catholics, the part I added to the statement is completely unnecessary for clarification. Can we as Catholics speak of the Mormon faith as an intentional deviation of genuine Christianity? Why not? There was no intention to conform to basic Christian norms, as they were all wrong according to Joseph Smith’s First Vision. And since we been around since Christ, we do indeed have the right to define, at least for ourselves, what is genuinely christian.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
JMN wrote There was no intention to conform to basic Christian norms, as they were all wrong according to Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
I am guessing that you know this is a misrepresentation. The decisions of the committees who formulated the creeds (i.e. the content of the creeds themselves and the purpose for which the creeds were and are used) were revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ himself to be unacceptable. Basic Christian norms, on the other hand, are found in their full strength in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Now, if you are categorizing a creed created in 325 A.D. as encompassing all “basic Christian norms,” then your statement is remarkable, but perhaps understandable. I would ask you, however, what is to be done with the beliefs of Christians before the creation of the Nicene Creed? Are or were they basic Christian norms? Or were they retroactively excised by the creation of that creed?
July 19th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
The quote here is:
“that [examples of Protestant literature] treat the Church of Rome as if she were, in the open, popular sense, a sect, established, like Gnosticism of old, or Mormonism in our time, in the distinct consciousness of being a deviation from genuine Christianity…,”
Rev. Starbuck is accusing the Protestants of treating the Catholics of being a sect established in the distinct conciousness of being a deviation from genuine Christianity.
i.e. that the Catholics purposely established a sect intended to promote a non-genuine Christianity.
Then as examples of such sects, he gives Mormonism and Gnosticism. Now I don’t think Gnosticism is an identifiable sect - too much diversity for that, but that is beside the point.
Rev. Starbuck is being unusually hypocritical here, accusing the Protestants of the stupidity of accusing the Church of Rome of conciously establishing something intended to deviate from genuine Christianity.
Then he fully repeats the error he is accusing the Protestants of, by accusing the Mormons of the same thing without any warrant whatsoever. Classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
The Holy Spirit spoke through the “committees” who met in Acts 15. And He did so in Nicea. You are not compelled to believe this, but I do. If it was good enough for the Apostles, it’s good enough for their successors.
It seems pretty clear that you understood quite well what I meant by “basic Christian norms.”
I understand very clearly what you believe about the early Christians. But since history did not preserve this faith, Christianity was what it was in 1830. There were norms then as there are now. Nothing I said earlier defined what you believe christianity to be. As you have the right to define it for yourselves, so do we as Catholics and Protestants. But the Nicean creed is normitive for christianity before Joseph Smith and after. To argue with that, JF, is to diminish the restoration. You don’t want to do that, of course, but you still would take issue with my point that the faith Joseph Smith started was different from Christianity of the time. I honestly don’t know what to say to that. “Norms” are based on prevailing beliefs. No matter how right you are in your faith, if it is different from 99% of Christians, it is not the norm.
One of these days I’d like to see a thread that explores the Mormon psychology that I continue to see. Mormons see themselves and expect others to see them as both unique and just like everyone else. Every argument that pins them down as being unique or as common always faces a challenge. This is a mystery that ranks right up there with the Trinity.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Honestly, do you really expect Rev. Starbuck to treat Mormonism and Catholicism exactly the same? Is James Talmadge a hypocrit because he didn’t treat Mormonism and Catholicism the same?
Rev. Starbuck does have a warrent. He believes in his faith. By definition, that makes Mormonism wrong to him.
I think I established before that Mormonism is distinct and unique from Christian norms (more blackboard scraping for John F). Thus, I don’t see the offense to Mormons. On the other hand, and don’t see why Starbuck isn’t free to argue that Catholicism is not.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Inasmuch as the early church was divided over this issue, coming together and working out difference was a fortuitous idea. I wish such a council as what happened Nicea had happened earlier to define other doctrines that were in dispute. After the apostles and before Nicea the way to do such was from letter writing campaigns. When local churches had disputes that came up they would write letters to doctrinal gurus of the Church, for example Clement received a letter about the church in Corinth for advice on what to do about overthrowing their Bishop. The 2nd and 3rd century church was a marketplace of competing ideas without a strong central government or a way to get the all (or least authoritative representatives) of Christianity to meet and unify on doctrine.
A parallel to inspiration by a council can be found in the Mormon church as well, despite the illusion that the LDS prophet calls all the shots. I actually wrote the following on the FAIR message boards earlier this month:
One think the council at Nicea lacked was a “And Peter stood up” moment, but that is understandable given the absence of pope at the council. Some might worry whether inspiration could be present where heated contention was, but parallels can be found in Mormon history as well, where leaders disagree with each other (example: David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith on evolution). Others might worry about the interference of the government and politics involved in Nicea and its aftermath, but a parallel of sorts can be found with the Mormon cessation of the practice of polygamy and government interference.
July 20th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
John MN (#7),
I am inclined to reluctantly conclude that either you are being purposely obtuse, or the whole point has gone completely over your head.
No, I definitely do not expect Rev. Starbuck to treat Catholicism and Mormonism the same way. That is not the issue at all.
The key phrase here is “in the distinct conciousness of being (a deviation)”, as in knowing full well what they were doing - purposely deviating from the true faith according to their own knowledge. Bad faith in other words.
The issue is the hypocrisy of criticizing the naivete of the Protestants for beleiving that the Catholics *purposely intended* to be a deviation from genuine Christianity, and then going on to claim that the Mormons did actually *purposely intend* to be a deviation from genuine Christianity.
First he criticizes the Protestants for concluding the Catholics are acting in bad faith, and then proceeds to mention en passant, that the Mormons are actually acting in bad faith, with no evidential warrant whatsoever, and contrary to every available assertion from the LDS on the subject.
In short he is claiming to be an authority on LDS sincerity, while simultaneously criticizing the Protestants for claiming to be authorities on Catholic sincerity.
How much more obvious does it get?
July 21st, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Considering the isolation of Christians around the world, in Rome, Greece, Asia, Assyria, Egypt, and India, and their status in the empire, whiched ranged from 2nd class citizen to traitor, their unity is remarkable, and ever more evidence of the promise of Christ to be with them to the end of time.
Saint Stephen had no cause to worry about that.
July 21st, 2006 at 4:39 pm
On Councils:
We have a rule in our church that a decision of a council must be *unanimous* be be considered to have binding authority, and even then it is generally not binding for all eternity.
We bind relationships like marriages for all eternity, on condition of righteousness, but we rarely if ever say that our doctrinal understanding, even our consensus doctrinal understanding is free from all error or approximation, in part because we beleive that God teaches according to our understanding, and in the case of Church teachings, that means according to our collective understanding - the “mysteries” are revealed on an individual basis, according to a persons understanding, until at the last day we come to a perfect unity of the faith as a body of Christ.
Of course there are a large number of doctrines that we regard as practically infalliable, practically meaning that we do not understand every detail about how they are implemented in real life.
July 21st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
The idea is that when any council is not unanimous, someone there probably has a good reason for dissenting, and so a major decision or pronouncement of doctrine should be delayed until all members come together in a unity of the faith.
No majority override in doctrine allowed - anything that there is not a perfect consensus on is an official mystery of sorts. Many of the earlier non-consensus books or speeches by LDS authorities fall in that category - usually a mixture of doctrine and opinion. The opinion might be true of course, but the Church does not teach one way or the other until there is a revelation on the subject, or at least an all out inspired consensus among the apostles, that the proposition in question is actually the case, or is according to the will of the Lord.
Now the idea behind unanimity and delay in doctrinal matters is to avoid the type of situation described by Hans Kung:
Retrieved from: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=5120
Whether his description is accurate or not, it is that sort of arm twisting and power politics that we seek to avoid, in favor of the gradual consensus resting upon the body by virtue of the Holy Spirit revealing the truth of the matter unto all.
July 21st, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way, Mark, but neither inclination is correct. I just saw you reading an offense where it does not exist. Maybe the problem is that I’m having difficulty expressing that. Maybe I’m using bad analogies. Let me try again with your lastest post. This is your characterization of his statement.
That takes what Fr. Starbuck said and inserts meaning that was never there. I will carefully attempt to show this one more time.
Fr. Starbuck did indeed say that Mormonism is “…a sect, established… in the distinct consciousness of being a deviation from genuine Christianity”.
Now does he say, for instance, that Mormons purposefully deviate from the true faith? Yes he does. And we know this because we can reasonably assume that he sees “genuine Christianity” as the true faith. And it was clear to him as it is to all of us that Mormons do know that they deviate from what Starbuck called “genuine Christianity”, and thus this deviation is indeed purposeful.
Now is any of this so far a problem? Since Fr. Starbuck is free to choose his faith, he is free to assume “geniune Christianity” is the true faith. He can express that without controversy even if he is a fool for doing so.
Now to your insertion. You say that Starbuck insists that Mormons are “…purposely deviating from the true faith according to their own knowledge.” You can not get that from his statement without making a bizarre assumption. Your assumption is that Fr. Starbuck’s definition of “geniune Christianity” is universally accepted by Protestants, Catholics, Gnostics, and Mormons, and understood by all to be the true faith. That is the only way you end with Gnostics and Mormons intentionally giving their lives to a faith they know to be false.
So in other words, we have groups of people who have a true faith and practise something else.
Mark, this poor guy did not say anything of the kind. He made no statements of the sincerity of either the Mormons or the Gnostics. You do consciously deviate from what Catholics and Protestants believe. And as a matter of faith, he is free to call his faith “genuine” without being branded a hypocrite for noting that other people practise something else, and they do so knowing they practise something else.
At the risk of being accused of overusing a word, you’ve created a strawman. You’ve invented an outrage. The only arrogance Starbuck shows is the belief in his own faith. He nowhere transfers that same belief to people who practise something else. Now look at the above italicized statement. Assumptions you made - Starbuck believes 1) “genuine Christianity” has an understood definition among the peoples discussed, and 2) all accept it as the true faith regardless of what they practice.
Can you back up those assumptions? Are those not the assumptions you made? If not, what were they. You need to tell me, because you haven’t yet backed up your claim about what he said.
(And Protestants say the Bible alone… Imagine us agreeing on the meaning of every verse of the Bible)
July 21st, 2006 at 11:22 pm
In regards to Rev. Starbuck’s remarks there is some ambiguity whether he is repressenting the Protestant perspective throughout or not. It makes a difference whether “Mormonism in our time . . .[is in the] distinct consciousness of being a deviation from genuine Christianity” is a thought initiated by Protestants or Rev. Starbuck. If it is the former case, the alternative reading I am pointing out perhaps doesn’t matter, if Rev. Starbuck is accepting that judgement of Protestants on Mormons.
From books like Terryl Givens “Viper on the Hearth” it is clear that American Protestant literature attacking Catholicism was borrowed heavily from to attack Mormonism as well. It could be Rev. Starbuck was noting the Protestants were making similar cases against Mormonism and Catholicism.
Much more likely he is appealing to common ground that Protestants and Catholics share about notions of geniune Christianity by pointing to outliers of that common ground. The fact that __Bibliotheca Sacra__ is an evangelical journal would lend creedence to that reading. In other words, he is playing up to an evangelical audience. He is trying to appeal to a subjective, inner-group allowance for both Catholicism and Protestantism to conscientiously pursue what they believe to be true Christianity (which Mark B. shows it is inconsistent to not grant Mormonism the same allowance). On the other hand he wants to eat his cake too, and appeal a broader, geniune Christianity shared by multiple groups (but this in turn falls into the usual question-begging trap that all attempts to exclude Mormonism from Christianity do).
Regardless of what Rev. Starbuck meant, I would hope that Mormons and Catholics will be able to restrain themselves from using common ground found with Protestantism as an additional leverage against each other.
July 22nd, 2006 at 12:18 am
Mark,
Thanks for your comments on councils in Mormonism. I do think it is important to note that when the leading councils aren’t unanimous a truce is declared and the matter is left open for people to form their own conclusions and public ecclesiastical debate is often shelved. A difference with early Christians is they seemed to attach a lot of animosity to those who held opposing viewpoints and they needed resolution and unity of belief to hold the church together. The pressure to be unified in belief is perhaps the price paid for being adopted as a state religion.
In the past, tensions in Mormonism have only been high when disputes have been over practices rather than theology. Most of the schisms of Mormonism can be traced to disagreement over changes in the polygamy practice or over succession practices.
I suppose the leading criticism I have for accepting the Nicene council, given similarities as well as differences with Mormon councils, is the absence of a normative revelator. But that isn’t a real criticism as much as it is a statement of my reliance on Mormon truth claims. I can’t help but read about Moses and others in the Old Testament and yearn for a contemporary leader that has intimate access to the divine council and can lay down the law (pending acceptance by earthly councils) if necessary. I would have made a terrible 4th century Christian when the best that could be done was to draw from the rich body of past revelations and deduce appropriate conclusions from it given the intellectual tools of the day.
July 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 am
John MN (#13),
That makes for a nice apologetic I suppose, but if that is what Rev. Starbuck intended to communicate, he did not, in that instance, know how to form a correct English sentence.
When you speak about someone else’s intent, especially their distinct consciousness, what follows had better be an accurate description of what is in *their* mind, not what is in *your* mind.
Otherwise one is being woefully misleading about a material point.
And in this case, if we take your counter-grammatical interpretation, what we end up with is nonsensical, something like:
“that [examples of Protestant literature] treat the Church of Rome as if she were, in the open, popular sense, a sect, established, like Gnosticism of old, or Mormonism in our time, in the distinct consciousness of doing something evaluated by [Protestants, regarding the Catholics, and Catholics regarding the Mormons and Gnostics] as being a deviation from genuine Christianity…,â€
i.e. no criticism of the what the Protestants are doing at all, other than believing that the Catholics depart from genuine Christianity, like the way we believe the Mormons and the Gnostics depart from genuine Christianity.
That is a criticism of the Protestants?
July 22nd, 2006 at 7:32 am
It was an accurate description. I\’ve stated in #3 and #13 that I agree with the point myself. I challenged any Mormon to enlighten me if this point is incorrect. It seems that challenge is as overlooked as Starbuck\’s original intent.
That quote by itself is not a criticism of Protestantism. Why should this quote need to be? He did critique Protestant critics of the Catholic Church for getting it wrong.
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:10 am
Ugh. John, your blockquote tags were messed up, and I fixed them, but Wordpress’s comment editor adds the backslash to apostrophes and I can’t make it stop. Sorry.
July 22nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
John MN,
What exactly did Rev. Starbuck get right about the contents of Joseph Smith’s conciousness?
That he distinctly intended to depart from genuine Christianity?
Don’t make me laugh.
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Maybe you like Joseph Smith’s sense of humor.
July 22nd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Again. Did you have to rub it in, Brad?
Don/t worry, I like it better that way.
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:51 am
John MN, You are giving me the strong impression that you cannot comprehend standard written English.
Now you appear to have made an argument from the philosophy that the words “intended to” are meaningless. If not, your argument, such as it is, is still a non sequitur.
Joseph Smith said that God told him that the *creeds* of the other Christian denominations were an “abomination”. He did not say that the scriptures were an abomination, or that Christianity was an abomination, he said that the *creeds* of existing Christian churches were an abomination.
Skipping several years, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are ordained by divine messengers and instructed to formally re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ. He and Oliver Cowdery do this, with several others in attendance, on April 6, 1830.
The testimony of Joseph Smith is that Jesus Christ appeared to him, told him that the other existing churches had fallen into error because of their creeds, incorrect interpretations of the scriptures, etc. Then he is eventually instructed to formally establish (or restore) the true and living Church of Jesus Christ, and he does so.
And you want to tell me that evidence indicates that Joseph Smith *intended* to deviate from genuine Christianity?
You can claim that Joseph Smith did deviate from what you regard as genuine Christianity all you want.
However you cannot claim that he intended to do so. Your argument so far is a perversion of the English language, indeed a perversion of any language.
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 am
John MN, Especially with this being the Sabbath day, but certainly on more general principles, I should apologize if I have given any offense, and for a certain unwarranted presumptutousness regarding whether your semantic philosophy is a coherent one or not.
It does seem to me to be contrary to convention, but in all fairness I should give you an opportunity to make your case that your semantics are better or more accurate than the conventional distinction between perception and reality.
You seem to be arguing here that no one can establish a church that deviates from genuine Christianity without knowing that they are doing so, i.e. that they are deviants from the truth, and further that Catholicism is the genuine Christianity, therefore all other denominations were founded by concious deviants.
Now to me, this seems to deny the biblical distinction between two kinds of sin / evil, sin as knowing transgression, and sin as any transgression whatsoever. We usually call the former \”sin\”, and the latter \”transgression\”.
Allow me to quote from the New Testament:
Now whatever the proper terminology, you appear to be denying the distinction made by James here - literally that God holds his children accountable according to their level of understanding - that is a true sin when one transgresses the law knowing full well what one is doing, but that it is not a true sin, when one transgresses the law unknowingly.
Therefore if it is possible to transgress the law in ignorance, then it is possible to depart from genuine Christianity in ignorance as well.
So for your argument to succeed, you must establish both that your version of Christianity is the real McCoy (i.e. that the Catholics are not transgressing in ignorance), and you must establish that Joseph Smith was aware of this fact, contrary to his own testimony.
In fact the testimony that you have quoted demonstrates exactly the opposite - that he was firmly convinced (at a minimum) that other churches had rigid creeds that were departures from genuine Christianity, thus the need for the fulness of the true gospel of Jesus Christ to be restored, to counteract those errors.
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:58 am
Sorry, I forgot to close a tag.
July 23rd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I tried to fix it, and therefore ruined everything.
July 23rd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Thank you. Can Father Starbuck do the same?
Okay, so the deviation is purely unintentional. The Mormons, without ever realizing it, woke up one day with something different. Maybe someone else pointed it out to them.
Trying to minimize the differences by saying that it was only the creeds that were wrong isn’t too convincing. It attaches meaning to the faith. Mormons also have a creed. “I believe that the Book of Mormon is true. I believe that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God.” Oh yes, you don’t get that from a “committee”, or some other pejoritive for a group of uninspired people, but rather from the Spirit. Well, it doesn’t really matter where it comes from. If it is a uniting principle, it’s a creed. And creeds define a faith.
Having gone in seemingly endless circles over a 39 word quote, one can see how important a teaching authority is to scripture. You can make those scriptures say just about anything you want, just as you have taken an offense where there is none to be found.
I do appreciate the apology, but I guess there really isn’t anything to apologise for if this is really how you see things. I wish you had at least addressed the questions I gave you. I think I see where our point of disagreement lies at its most basic element, but I’ll never know for sure. The only thing we are learning from this is the futility of dialogue.
My argument was based on neither. My very first comment (#3) addresses this false premise. This proves that we’re going in circles.
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:08 pm
The implied argument here is a non sequitur, because the dispute is not over whether there was a deviation, it is over whether the deviation was in favor of, or against genuine Christianity.
You are again moving your world view inside of Joseph Smith’s head, arguing that he intended to deviate from what he knew full well to be genuine Christianity, instead of his testimony that he was divinely directed to *restore* genuine Christianity.
You cannot put words in someone’s mouth, let alone inside their head. He did not believe he was deviating from genuine Christianity, he believed that existing creedal implementations of Christianity were an abomination, and as such was under divine direction to restore the proper, inspired implemenation of Christianity.
Now your second argument makes the implicit unwarranted assertion that we believe that all creeds, of whatever nature or kind, are an abomination. That is not true - we believe that God beleives that certain specific types of creeds are an abomination, and that the God of the philosophers type of creed so prevalent in conventional Christianity particularly so.
The type of creed we beleive is an abomination, by and large, is well exemplified by the Westminster Confession. I love the language and respect the tradition - it is the heritage of my own ancestors, but there are several aspects of such a creed that are incorrect, harmful and dangerous, often because they were arrived at using an inferior, unspired scriptural exegesis.
We particularly object to the doctrine of pre-destination, and the doctrine of theological determinism - that everything that happens, happens according to the will of the Lord, by his eternal decree (and yet somehow he is not the author of sin):
http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html
Arminianism is much superior, but it has its own problems, notably the unwarranted assertion of original sin and total depravity - the idea that a baby is evil from birth, and that Christian service and suffering is a superfluity, contrary to the words of Paul.
And I shall not even get started on the particularly perverse doctrine of Eternal Security (once saved, always saved).
These are all the philosophies of men, contrary to the inspired understanding of God. That is why we generally hold the systematic theologies of men in rather low regard. Not that it cannot be done, just that it rarely is done well - and to do it well generally requires a level of understanding beyond the level of mortal scholarship.
July 23rd, 2006 at 5:06 pm
For the 500th time, it has nothing to do with what Joseph Smith thinks is genuine Christianity. It has nothing to do with what you think is genuine Christianity. You and Joseph and every single Mormon who’s ever lived can believe what you practise is genuine Christianity, and it still has nothing to do with what Father Starbuck said.
From #3, I asked:
Can you answer that question for me?
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:32 pm
No, that statement is not true. And as yet, I fail to understand why you or anyone else in the whole world could think that it is, from any coherent, sane, having-a-grip-on-reality perspective whatsoever.
Please tell me what you think the prepositional qualifier “in the distinct conciousness of” means, if not to refer to the intent a person distinctly and conciously has within their own mind.
In order for him to mean what you claim he means, he would have to say something like “in the distinct conciousness of having a purpose which, contrary to his own intent, practically amounted to a purpose to depart from genuine Christianity”.
Or in simpler form, he could have said:
Protestants believe we are not a genuine Christian sect, just like us, who believe that Mormons and Gnostics are not genuine Christian sects.
On the contrary, however, he asserted that Protestants believed that Catholics were founded as a sect with the clear and distinct intent of departing from genuine Christianity, in the way that Mormons and Gnostics actually did form sects with the clear and distinct intent of departing from genuine Christianity.
If that is not what he meant, then he did a good job of questioning the sincerity and good faith of some thousands to millions of people without a cause.
And further, he must of have been exceedingly negligent, at best, because there is no way under the sun that the common English semantics of that sentence mean anything significantly different than what I have said.
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:34 pm
By the way the statement, as edited, is not only not true, it is not even sensical. It contains a bunch of qualifiers that have no purpose except to confuse.
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:55 pm
I will back off a little and say that it makes some sense in a most exceeding awkward and bizarre manner.
However, as I explained before that substitution does not work because of the parallel usage of that phrase to describe both what the Protestants believe about the Catholics and what the Catholics believe about the Mormons and Gnostics.
In other words, it is doubly, almost triply overloaded, and has to carry relatively uniform semantics in each case.
The putatively unwritten doublet qualifer (what the Protestants believe to be, and what we believe to be) is a pretty remarkable ellipsis for a statement that is making a contrast.
The title of the article is “Unintelligent Treatment of Romanism”. How do your purported contra-grammatical semantics advance that thesis?
What is his point of including the sentence in the first place if not to criticize Protestants for the unwarranted belief that the Catholic Church was established with the *intent* to depart from genuine Christianity?
Why include a sentence that allegedly criticizes the Protestants for believing that the Catholic Church believe differently than they do?
Why is the word “established” in the sentence? Why not just say:
“The Protestants believe the Catholics departed from genuine Christianity. We believe the Mormons and the Gnostics departed from genuine Christianity.”
Where is the contrast? What is the relevance of Catholic beliefs about Mormons and Gnostics in a paper (or in a sentence) criticizing unintelligent views of Romanism?
Is it necessary to write a sentence twice that long, especially one that communicates something entirely different in nearly every word, accusing two “sects” of dishonesty and bad faith, in the exact same wording as it is criticizing unintelligent Protestant views of your own church?
He couldn’t look more hypocritical or ignorant if he tried.
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:57 pm
That should be “no function except to confuse”
July 24th, 2006 at 7:00 am
July 24th, 2006 at 7:11 am
I triple checked that post and still blew it!
July 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Since I can’t “fix” it without making it look “stupid,” from now on if you just want to re-post stuff correctly I’ll delete the wrong one(s)…
July 24th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
John MN,
I can’t exactly diagram the sentence here, nor am I an expert in all the grammatical terminology. All I am saying is that “from genuine Christianity” is a prepositional qualifier of the verb depart, which is part of a part of a possessive property attribution of “distinct conciousness”, which is used to describe the intent of the establishers of a three different sects, with a contrast between the validity of the assertion between Catholicism and Mormonism and Gnosticism.
In other words “from genuine Christianity” is bracketed inside the conciousness of the various sects founders. One cannot make an argument that it should be lifted out to be the authors perspective or sense of the term, because the grammar of the sentence places it explicitly in the knowing belief of the sect founders.
“Bracket” means schema change. A schema is a collection of beliefs about the world. “intent”, “belief”, “conciousness” are schema identifiers. We have shifted from the author’s schema to the sect founder’s schema - that is the purpose of all the prepositions. After the phase “in the distinct conciousness of”, the rest of that sentence refers to the founder’s schema and belief, not the author’s schema and belief.
To switch between the two without explicit warning is dishonest. I doubt Rev. Starbuck was particularly dishonest, but I think he must have been horribly misinformed, and I find it most amusing that he did not realize the strong irony of what he was saying.
By the way, how does he know that Gnosticism, as such, was established with the clear intent of departing from genuine Christianity. It was so broad a phenomenon that I wonder how he considers it a sect at all. Which Gnostics went around preaching that they were not genuine Christians or that the Apostles were all wrong?
July 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
An equivalent statement would be for me to assert that “I know that you believe deep down in your heart that Joseph Smith is a prophet of the True and Living God.”
Isn’t it obvious what is wrong with making that assertion without any evidence, and why it is a presumption in the first place?
And wouldn’t it be bizarre for me to claim that what I really intended to say was that you believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet of a false god, one that he only thought was true and living?
One cannot just schema change like that willy nilly.
July 24th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Brad - Go ahead and make me look stupid. If I post now, I will be out of order. And my bad formatting is changing everything after it, and that’s not really fair, now is it?
Next time, I promise to immediately repost.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Mark,
The true irony here is that you decry Father Starbuck’s pretense of being able to read the minds of Mormons and Gnostics (and thus ending with an assertion that defies any sense of logic), but to come to that conclusion, you do precisely the same thing to him (and then get indignant about his silly assertion).
So far, so good.
Yes and no. Yes, the sect founders know that they depart from what Father Starbuck, and I, believes is “genuine Christianityâ€. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that they accept Father Starbuck’s “genuine Christianity†as a true faith.
“Distinct consciousness†applies to the “departureâ€, which is from “genuine Christianityâ€. So far so good. But he has to use the phrase “genuine Christianity†or some other phrase to be specific. That is because the Protestant claim against Catholics was that while they use similar scriptures and Christian-sounding doctrines, they still departed from true faith in specific, heretical ways. To simply say we Catholics departed from “Christianity†would be met, even within a like-minded audience, by an index finger pointing to the crucifix behind the altar, or some other evidence of its authentic Christian heritage. The adjective “genuine†is required to acknowledge that the sect may be Christian-like, even though it is not the true faith of Christianity. From the Catholic perspective, that applies to Mormons and Gnostics.
When writing anything, it is important to be understood by the audience. Being understood by the subjects is of no importance.
That’s simply not true. This is his assertion, so he doesn’t divorce himself or his biases from his own statement. The departure is from Christianity, of which the adjective “genuine†applies. The term “genuine†qualifies “Christianityâ€, thus defining a specific belief system which his intended audience clearly understands. That’s all it does. It does not create a ridiculous leap that is inexplicable, thus allowing you to discredit him for the inexplicability of his statement. Were he to say what you believe he intended to say, he would have done so with explicit language to convey that intent.
No warning need be given to an audience that understands what “genuine Christianity†means. And his intended audience understood him perfectly. He did not intend to address someone who would first be offended by the fact that his faith was specifically excluded from “genuine Christianityâ€. I do hope that this is not the motive for which you strain to find an absent grammatical technicality to ascribe a false assertion to his plain language.
We have officially come to an impasse.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
John MN, I agree we are at an impasse. My speculation about Rev. Starbuck is because I do not believe that he could be that ignorant of the standard English meaning of his sentence. I am also rather surprised that you do not see it either. However, we will just have to agree to disagree.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
What a flowering of Christian charity. Way to go, y’all.