Dear God, America Calling
By Matt Thurston on Sep 25, 2006
“Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but, I feel that I should be heard loud and clear…”
–XTC
More than any other time in recent history, Americans seem to be elbowing and clamoring to be heard loud and clear by God. Currently, a new documentary called Jesus Camp is freaking out Secularists, and, as it turns out, many Evangelicals, with its frank portrayal of a somewhat militant Christian “boot camp” for teens in the Midwest. (Pre-teens and teens are shown praying over a cardboard cutout of President Bush, sobbing as they plead for an end to abortion, speaking in tongues, cheering wildly when asked if they’d be willing to give up their lives for Jesus, etc.) A trailer for the documentary and an ABC News clip available at YouTube has evidently made Jesus Camp the firebrand “le topique du jour” around the Blogosphere. (Note: “topique” is French for “topic,” according to moi.)
But just who is this God that Americans (and more specifically evangelical or mainline “Christians”) are currently so excited about? When Secularists or Liberals refer to the “Religious Right” or “Evangelicals” or “Moral Majority,” a monolithic and uniform God is suggested. But does the “Religious Right” agree about a monolithic and uniform God? And do they identify with such labels as “Religious Right” or “Evangelical” or “Moral Majority” or “Born-Again”? Are their opinions about the War on Terror unanimous? Do they believe God favors the United States or a particular political party? How prevalent is their belief in the paranormal (i.e. ancient civilizations like Atlantis, telekinesis, astrology, haunted houses, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc.)? These are just a few of the dozens of provocative questions an exciting new survey and study by the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University attempts to answer.
In partnership with Gallup, and featuring Rodney Stark (among a half-dozen others) as part of the research group, this survey—American Piety in the 21st Century (be patient, the pdf file takes awhile to load)—“is merely the first wave of a rich and rewarding new era of religious survey research. Additional waves of the Baylor Religion Survey, with rotating topical modules, will take place every other year.” The national survey features 1,721 respondents and has resulted in “over two dozen different articles and studies already in process.”
For stat lovers, the Baylor survey is smorgasbord of tasty delights. Following is but an appetizer sampler plate…
Religious Affiliation in the U.S. by broad category:
- 33.6% Evangelical Protestant (emphasizes authority of Bible, salvation through personal relationship with Christ, and importance of evangelizing; includes Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Seventh-day Adventist, Free Methodist, Assemblies of God, etc.)
- 22.1% Mainline Protestant (more accommodating of mainstream culture; includes American Baptist, Presbyterian Church USA, Quaker, United Methodist, etc.)
- 21.2% Catholic Protestant
- 5.0% Black Protestant
- 4.9% Other (includes Mormons, Buddhists, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus, etc.)
- 2.5% Jewish
- 10.8% Unaffiliated (persons without a religious preference, denomination, or place of worship; not necessarily atheists)
More about this “unaffiliated” group:
- The West has the highest percentages of religiously “unaffiliated” people (17.6%) and people in “other” (i.e. Mormon, etc.) religious traditions (10.3%) of any U.S. region.
- The majority of Americans not affiliated with a religions tradition (62.9%) believe in God or some higher power, 31.6% of the unaffiliated pray at least occasionally, but only 10.7% attend religious services.
Is there a disconnect between how the media and academics identify believers and how they identify themselves? From a list of 14 religious terms, respondents were asked to check all terms with which they identify, as well as the best identifying term.
- For example, nearly half of Americans (47.2%) identify themselves as “Bible-believing.”
- Only 15% of the population use the term “Evangelical” to describe their religious identity, and only 2% say it is the best description (from the list of 14).
- “Born Again” was chosen by 28.5% of the respondents.
- Persons with household income of more than $100,000 a year are twice as likely to describe themselves as “Theologically Liberal” than are persons with household incomes of $35,000 or less a year; and persons with “college or more” level of education are almost four times as likely to describe themselves as “Theologically Liberal” as persons with “high school of less” level of education.
What else?
- More than a quarter (28.5%) of the nation has read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, and slightly less than half of Americans (44.3%) have seen Passion of the Christ.
- Nearly one fifth (18.6%) of Americans think that God favors the United States in worldly affairs.
- Maybe most remarkable to me: 41.2% of Americans agree with the following statement: “Ancient advanced civilizations, such as Atlantis, once existed.” This compared to 17.9% who agree that “Creatures such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster will one day be discovered by Science.”
The most interesting part of the Baylor survey is the question of whether Americans have a monolithic and uniform view of God. The survey contains 29 questions about God’s character and behavior. A factor analysis reveals two clear and distinct dimensions of belief in God: 1.) God’s level of engagement; 2.) God’s level of anger. These dimensions are plotted on an X-Y axis yielding four distinct American Gods:
- Type A: Authoritarian God (31.4%): A God who is highly involved in individuals daily lives and world affairs; Authoritarian God helps individuals in their decision-making and is responsible for global events such as economic upturns or tsunamis; God can be quite angry and is capable of meting out punishment to those who are unfaithful or ungodly.
- Type B: Benevolent God (23.0%): Like Type A, Benevolent God is very active in our daily lives, but he is less likely to be angry or act in wrathful ways; instead, Benevolent God is mainly a force of positive influence in the world and less willing to condemn or punish individuals.
- Type C: Critical God (16.0%): God does not really interact with the world; nevertheless, Critical God still observes the world and views the current state unfavorably and will punish the bad (and reward the good) in the next life.
- Type D: Distant God (24.4%): God is not active in the world and not especially angry either; individuals who believe in a Distant God tend to think of God as a cosmic force which set the laws of nature in motion; God does not “do things” in the world and does not hold clear opinions about our activities or world events.
- Atheists (5.2%): Do not believe God exists; nevertheless, atheists may still hold strong perspectives concerning the morality of human behavior and ideals of social order but Atheists have no place for the supernatural in their larger worldview.
Interesting conclusions from the above statistics:
- Women tend towards very engaged images of God (Types A and B) while men tend towards less engaged images (Type D) and are more likely to be atheists.
- Individuals with lower educations and lower incomes tend towards more towards Types A and B; those with college degrees and who earn more than $100,000 disproportionately believe in a Distant God or are Atheists.
- Easterners tend toward belief in a Critical God. Southerners tend towards an Authoritarian God. Midwesterners tend towards a Benevolent God. And West Coasters tend towards belief in a Distant God.
So how would the results look if 1,721 random, active Mormons were polled? Who is the Mormon God? The God of the Bible, Book of Mormon, and early Church History is undoubtedly an Authoritarian God. The God of Fast & Testimony meetings seems to be a Benevolent God (i.e. God answered this or that prayer). The God of Sunday School and Priesthood lessons seems to be a Critical God (i.e. most lessons have an emphasis on obedience and enduring to the end). And the God of Mormon Intellectual circles (i.e. Sunstone, etc.) seems to be a Distant God.
Overall though, I’d have to say that the official, orthodox Mormon God is an Authoritarian God.
Questions:
Which God do you think is the official Mormon God? Which God do YOU believe in? What other conclusions do you draw from the Baylor survey? What is your first impression of “Jesus Camp” based on the trailer?
P.S. If anyone has access to the survey responses, I’m very curious to know the responses to the oh-so-tantalizing question #50: How much would you say that you “trust” the following people or groups? (Responders must select one of four boxes: 1.) A lot; 2.) Some; 3.) Only a little; 4.) Not at all.) Among the 17 people or groups listed are: the U.S. Government, George Bush, John Kerry, the media, the police, people of other races, and yes, you bet your Fast Offering dollar— Mormons!!! (FWIW, Mormons are one of four religious groups on the how-much-do-you-trust-them list, the other three being Protestants, Catholics, and Muslims.) Anyone affiliated with Baylor? Did Mormons finish 15th, 16th, or 17th (out of 17) on the list of “most trustworthy”? Did we at least edge the godless media? 
Great post, Matt! I’ve seen the A-B-C-D responses highlighted in religion stories in the main papers, but didn’t realize that there was so much additional information in this survey.
I find it hard not to try to fit all of this data into some kind of narrative or framework. The great sociological narrative of religion of the 20th century was the secularization hypothesis: that religion was becoming increasingly irrelevant in our modern world. Now this has been revised to account for the growing power of religion in the public sphere in addition to increasing secularization of some elements of society. I think that some of this split is visible in the statistics you shared.
Jesus Camp is another sign of this split. My first impression was a combination of awe and fear. I respect the faith being expressed, but its militancy and its political impact scares me.
On the A-B-C-D question and Mormons: I think that most LDS probably believe in a Benevolent God, because of the emphasis on free agency (especially as a theodicy). I could be wrong, but I think that Mormons are less likely to see God behind Katrina and the tsunami. Or perhaps they see him as a authoritative in their own personal lives, and benevolent in the world?
As for me, I think my god is Type J.
Comment # 1 by John Remy | Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
I just finished watching some clips from Jesus Camp. And it’s amazing how much it reminds me of my inner life as a child and teenager. It’s true that i never fell to the floor convulsing for Jesus, but the emotional intensity those kids were showing is very familiar.
I think what is shown in those clips, and what I felt when I was younger was the emotional intensity of being aligned with something important and powerful. I know I drew a lot of strength (and incapacitating guilt) from believing that I was a child of God, a bearer of the priesthood, a missionary with God’s true word, under eternally important covenants with glory for obedience and damnation for disobedience. That all encompassing, all-informing story that both saved and damned me.
Even if it strips you of peace, at least you have that huge story to hold you up and make your life irrevocably important.
I wonder if imbuing children with that sense of cosmic importance (and responsibility) is ethical. On the one hand, it seems great. If you can grow up always convinced of the doctrines you were taught as a child, you can always move forward. But what happens if the story comes a-tumbling down?
It certainly came a-tumblin’ down for me. And it left me with a situation I’m still in. How do I define myself in a way that it can’t be ripped out from under me again? How can I access any sort of authenticity in my construction of myself. Or how can I survive those destructions of self understanding?
Comment # 2 by Stephen Carter | Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
John,
I agree that most Mormons would not say God was directly behind Katrina or the current war, but we’re also fond of saying that these are signs of the times. We’re much less quick to assign blame to a group of people or geographic area (compared to even 50 years ago), but I still think most Mormons see the hand of God involved in these kinds of events in some way, shape, or form… maybe not to punish, but certainly to witness, and even to save those innocents caught in the crossfire.
However, during the first 75 years of the Church’s history, I think you see a lot more Mormons attributing various disasters to the hand of God. At the moment, I’m thinking of Zion’s Camp. At the end of the march, didn’t several members of the company get sick and Joseph attributed this to their murmuring and general unrighteousness? Don’t have time to look up the details.
In any case, I haven’t read any books on the subject, but from my anecdotal observation it was very obvious that religion was becoming less and less relevant during the 70s thru mid-to-late 90s. However, from it is also obvious that the pendulum has swung the other way in the past 8-to-10 years. Religion seems to have figured out a way to market itself for Gen X and Y. The few Christian megachurches I’ve attended put on quite a show– this definitely not your father’s Christianity.
Stephen,
You said, “I wonder if imbuing children with that sense of cosmic importance (and responsibility) is ethical. On the one hand, it seems great. If you can grow up always convinced of the doctrines you were taught as a child, you can always move forward. But what happens if the story comes a-tumbling down?”
I’ve thought about this a lot. Can we imbue a sense of cosmic importance in our children, but support it with a more realistic and solid foundation, one that won’t come tumbling down with a little analysis? I don’t think a 100% full-proof “story” exists. Still, there are degrees of truthfulness and reality in the stories we tell our children.
(Note to all: by “stories” I’m refering to narratives we teach young people that describe “the way things are.” And I’m not necessarily suggesting “stories” = “fiction”.)
You seem at least somewhat grateful that the “stories” you were told helped you get through your childhood, teen, and early adult years. I wonder how different your life would be if you were taught the “story” that God did not exist?
Are we more authentic when we act a certain way because we’re afraid of God’s judgment, or when we act a certain way because we’ve decided for ourselves what is right or wrong? Is there a difference?
Comment # 3 by Matt Thurston | Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
ConsiderJoseph Smith’s King Follett Discoruse teachings on the nature of the human mind (which resulted in a new creation myth that actually rejects creationism per se).
The human mind simply exists in nature. It is uncreated, eternal, co-equal with God. It is capable of progressing and growing eternally until through acquiring enough knowledge it becomes Divine itself.
The Agency of the individual is also sacred. Personal choice, the formation of personal values and the actual acquiring of knowledge is up to the efforts of the individual. The individual, in fact, “saves” him or herself.
“YOU have to learn to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have,” taught Joseph.
Joseph last teaching represented a mighty paradigm shift AWAY from Christianity and traditional monotheism—reflected, in fact, the establishment of a NEW theological paradigm. In this Mormon Paradigm, fears of God’s judgment have little value. Joseph’s last teaching were not that his followers obey God, but that they “learn to be God’s themselves.”
The concept of obedience implies a reward system: do this, and you’ll be give that. But to “learn to become Gods yoruselves” implies something else altogether: seeking out the truth for one’s self, learning the truth for one’s self, setting one’s own values and goals, experiencing the “opposition in all things” (which is life) for one’s self.
I left the LDS tradition because the LDS Church, in its emphasis on obedience as “the first law of heaven,” seems to have ignored the ground-breaking (and I believe world-changing) implications of Joseph’s last teachings.
Those teachings brought criticism on Joseph from many in the LDS leadership at that time. Once he was dead, the LDS leadership began ammending and watering-down his later teachings. The result was what so many Anti-Mormons have called “the Maze of Mormomism”–meaning, the inherent contradictions between Mormonism’s earlier Christiam Primitivist/Restorationist theology and Joseph’s radical Nauvoo-era theology. Now a Reform Mormon, I’m all to happy to toss out the early frontier Christian elements of Mormonism’s earliest doctrines in favor of the later Nauvoo-era doctrine. In doing so, I’m not tossing out an baby, just a lot of murky, muddy water that muddles my view of reality and human nature.
The result is that I DO think I am “more authentic” for taking on the responsibility of deciding for myself what is right and wrong, and for attempting to “learn how to be a God” myself—despite my failings.
Comment # 4 by Rob | Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Well said, Rob. I love your expansive interpretation of Joseph’s teachings. It would be fascinating to know if his theology would have continued in that direction, had he lived. His teachings over the years were divergent enough that those who followed could pick and choose from his various works and craft their own “authoritative” doctrine. The fact that the various FLDS groups claim Joseph as their founder and Reform Mormons also find certain Smith teachings worthwhile certainly attests to that fact, to say nothing of the many groups in-between these two bookends.
I’m assuming the Reform Mormon view of God is a “Distant God,” based on the Baylor matrix above? If this life really is to learn to become Gods, it seems to imply a necessary distance and not too much, if any, judgment.
Comment # 5 by Matt Thurston | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
IMatt,
I’d say that the Reform Mormon view of God is that of a “Distant God” and a “Benevolent God”–much as a parent of an adult would be a “distant” figure and a “benevolent” figure. I tend to envision God(s) as a benevolent, loving, concerned Heavely Father and Mother who want the best for me, who love me, but who are also bound by the constraints of nature and reality: they can not think for me, act for me or decide “what I will do with my life.”
Over the years several scholars who have written on Mormon theology have pointed out that a concept/doctrine distinct to Mormonism (at least to Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-era theology) is that of a limited God: a diety that was once human, has a material existence, is not a creator in the traditional sense, and who is subordinate to the laws governing nature/existence.
It seems that this “limited God” is the basis of an entirely new category of Diety not found in the Baylor matrix. The vision of a limited God certainly “speaks to my condition,” and illuminates my understanding of myself and existense as a whole. The traditional conceptions of an unlimited, all-powerful God seem to fly in the face of reality. When I embraced these conceptions, I was constantly on “the offensive” intellectually, ignoring or denying aspects of reality in order to make nature “square” with those conceptions of God.
Mormonism’s new paradigm has set me free.
Comment # 6 by rob | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
This is the same paradigm in Mormon theology that keeps me tied to it … even if its by a long string sometimes. It also set me free…free to think, free to explore, free to challenge.
The problem, though, is that when I go to church I don’t very often feel like anyone else sees God this way. It is, in my opinion, one of the clearest necessities of Mormon doctrine. Some of our very best intellectual literature is centered around it. Yet, how many active LDS Mormons think of Heavenly Parents that way (or think of “Parents” at all)? More often it seems that the God everyone at my ward talks about is the same God that the evangelicals are describing down the street.
Comment # 7 by Rick | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Rob, I’d probably need to learn more about the “Limited God” before trying to force him into the Baylor matrix, but at first blush he sounds like a Type D “Distant God.” I say that because he sounds like he is not particularly angry/judgmental/concerned-about-specific-black-and-white-behavior, or that he is particularly engaged in our lives. Someone who believes in a Distant God can see him/her/it as a “benevolent” being, but a “Type B Benevolent God” according to the Baylor matrix is someone who is active involved in our lives (and not just as a loving spectator). I take that to mean he is helping us find our car keys when they get lost; he is jump starting our cars on the side of the road; he is helping us find that job the day after we write the tithing check that brought our checking account balance to zero; he is healing the sick via Priesthood blessings; he is implanting an image of a dead and long-lost relative in our dreams so that we will do their temple work; etc.
When you say: I tend to envision God(s) as a benevolent, loving, concerned Heavely Father and Mother who want the best for me, who love me, but who are also bound by the constraints of nature and reality: they can not think for me, act for me or decide “what I will do with my life…” you seem to be describing the classic Distant God. Yes, he loves us, but part of learning to become God’s ourselves (or whatever) is finding the car keys ourselves and learning to deal with lost jobs and sickness. I’m not suggesting Distant God believers don’t pray, I just think they pray for different things, or have different expectations re the prayer’s results.
Comment # 8 by Matt Thurston | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Consider, for a moment, the makeup of the present-day LDS church. When I joined in 1980, there were 5 million members touted. Now, they tout 12 million (IIRC). Even accounting for birthrates, this represents a significant influx of converts from other faiths, during the past 26 years. Meanwhile, church lesson manuals have been progressively watered down to avoid anything controversial or challenging. What kind of result might you expect? Why, you end up with a whole lot of Protestant and Catholic converts, who are bringing their own theological baggage into the LDS church, but are NOT BEING TAUGHT beyond the missionary discussions to differentiate clearly between “apostate christianity” vs. revealed Mormonism. They continue to carry their old assumptions (including the very nature of deity), and express shock when they learn anything that differs.
For example, when I joined the church in 1980, it was rather clearly taught that Jesus was the alleged offspring of Mary and Elohim, in the same literal sense that I am the offspring of my own earthly parents. Now, if you happen to see that doctrine brought up at all, it is instantly opposed by uneducated LDS who assume that since they didn’t know it, it must be the false invention of anti-Mormons who wish to “make the church look bad.” The current neo-LDS mania of “we worship Jesus Christ” reflects the same type of influence, coupled with a public relations desire to be more palatable (read: marketable) to other “christians.” Such a doctrine was directly opposed by apostles and prophets as recently as the 1980s, but now it shows up in visitor center films.
Comment # 9 by Nick Literski | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Rick & Nick,
I shared your frustration with the knowledge of Mormon theology currently found within the LDS membership–AND currerntly taught by the LDS leadership. I believe it was at General Conference in 2000, the LDS Brethren said that Church members should no longer refer to themselves as “Mormons” or call their church “the Mormon Church.” Instead, the Church was to be referred to simply as “The Church of Jesus Christ.” To me this was significant.
I first joined the LDS Church in 1977, went to BYU, graduated, and left the Church. I returned in 1994 after “rediscovering” the theology of Joseph Smith. Upon returning to the LDS I was ASTOUNDED at the drastic changes: I felt as if I had joined an Evangelical denomination. The LDS was fast becoming (IS fast becoming) just another right-wing Protestant denomination. Nick hits the nail on the head: MILLIONS of converts have brought with them their Protestant and Catholic doctrinal assumptions, and the LDS Brethren–not wanting to lose a single member–have absorbed these assumptions into the teachings of the Church.
I decided to leave the LDS Church once and for all in November of 2002 because I realized that I–wuite literally–believed in a different religion than the one currerntly taught by the LDS Church; I worshiped a completely different God(s) than is worshipped by the vast majority of LDS members.
Luckily, a year later I discovered Reform Mormonism.
Comment # 10 by Rob | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Rob said:
I worshiped a completely different God(s) than is worshipped by the vast majority of LDS members.
I ask:
Even after a lifetime in and around Mormonism, I’m not certain exactly *what* Mormons believe about God. It seemed very simple and straight forward back in my youth. But, it appears to me that Mormon theology has become increasingly fuzzy as time progresses.
Can anybody elucidate? What IS the LDS belief about God? (Or, is that a question for which there is not simple answer?)
Comment # 11 by Preston Bissell | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Could somebody please explain to me what a Catholic Protestant is?
Comment # 12 by Doc | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
I think Nick hit the nail on the head: the LDS Church currerntly worships Jesus Christ as God.
This is a startling devleopment given that in March 1982. Apostle Mark E. Peterson denounced the trend (new at that time) of Church members in Testimony Meetings testifying to the importance of having “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”
(This was during the period when the LDS Church began its political involvment with the then-new Religious Right.Having “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” is the foundation of Born Again Christianity.)
Peterson gave his message at a BYU devotional that March and it was slated to be published in the ENSIGN as “The First Presidency’s message.” But Anti-Mormons and Evangelicals were quick to deounce Peterson’s message as proof that the LDS Church was NOT a Christian church. Consequently, the Brethren decided NOT to publish Peterson’s message in the ENSIGN.
Peterson said Church members should dveelope a relationship with Heavenly Fahther–NOT Christ; that they were to worship ONLY the Father, NOT Jesus Christ.
I was so horrified by Peterson’s message that I decided that very day to leave the LDS Church when I graduated from the Y later that year. Upon graduation I requested (and was granted) excommunication from the LDS Church. Coming from a Born Again Christian bacground, at that time I valued my relationship with Christ more than my standing in any Church.
Over a decade later, I rediscovered Joseph’s theology, rejected the foundational doctrines and assumptions of Christianity, and returned to the LDS Church–only to find that now it had changed completely.
I think much of the change has to do with Ezra Taft Benson’s effort to make “The Book of Mormon” central to LDS life and thought. In the 1970’s the STORY of the Gold Plates was central to LDSism, but the text of “The Book of Mormon” was not. The Old Testament and “The Doctrine & Covenants” seemed to be the favored scriptures when I joined the Church. When I first attended LDS meetings I was struck by how seldom anyone referred to Christ–except to invoke his name at the closing of prayer or talk; the focus was on Joseph Smith, Priesthood authority, the ordinances and the Church itself.
When I returned to the LDS Church in the mid-90’s, the doctrine of Grace was actually being taught. At several baptisms I attended, “Amazing Grace” was sung. Back in the 70’s and early 80’s, “Amazing Grace”
Comment # 13 by Rob | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Back in the 70’s and early 80’s, “Amazing Grace” was one of the hymns/songs that the LDS Church officially banned from being performed in Church because it preached a false doctrine: salvation by grace. (”Ava Maria” was another banned song.)
Now with the popularity of newer LDS books such as “Beleiving Christ,” the LDS Church seems to have morphed into an Evangelical denomination.
Comment # 14 by Rob | Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
I have long despised the song, “Amazing Grace,” but due to a different false doctrine that it teaches—the total depravity of man. Men and women are not “wretches.” In the LDS view, they are the literal offspring of gods. I’ve joked to family members that I would personally come back and haunt them if they let anyone sing that repulsive song at my funeral.
Benson’s hymnbook (funny that it still gets called the “new” hymnbook, when it came out circa 1985!) also imported a few other Protestant and Catholic hymns. I’ve heard that Benson was personally fond of “How Great Thou Art,” hence its inclusion. “Praise God, From Whom All Blessings Flow” had previously been used in the old Joseph Smith First Vision film almost mockingly, to represent a sectarian congregation, but now it’s in the LDS hymnal. The only one of these “imports” that I ever really liked was “Allelujah,” attributed to Francis of Assisi, which is admittedly almost more Pagan than “christian.”
Rob: Wasn’t the BYU devotional message you refer to given by Bruce R. McConkie, rather than Mark E. Petersen? Or did they both give similar messages, trying to stem the tide?
I have long believed that true Mormonism places Jesus of Nazareth more in the role of Exemplar, than “Redeemer.” This is not to say that Mormonism rejects the Atonement, but rather that in true Mormonism, *each* person plays an important part in the grand scheme of things–Jesus merely played one particular (and yes, important) role. Considering that he consistently directed that glory be given to the Father, rather than to him, this seems to accord more with how he saw himself, rather than how “christianity” evolved. True Mormonism lifts mankind as children of God, to an equal footing with Jesus—there to remain (with his help) if they keep their second estate. In short, Mormonism stressed the position of mankind as OF THE SAME SPECIES as the gods.
Contrast modern LDS-ism. While we do see lip service given to the idea of our divine heritage/birthright, deity has become something very much “other” than mankind. The idea that “the natural (i.e. carnally-minded) man is an enemy to God” has morphed into a doctrine very close to the “total depravity” taught by apostate christianity. While Joseph the Prophet raised man (and taught the “Benevolent God” described above) by teaching that “God in yonder heavens, whom ye worship, was once a man,” Gordon the Public Relations Director teaches of an Authoritarian and Critical God, by telling the world, “Oh, I don’t know that we teach that. We don’t know much about that, that’s (Lorenzo Snow’s poetic rendering of the teaching) more a little couplet than anything else.”
No matter how much LDS are fond of teaching that their religion hasn’t changed, I just don’t see how any objective observer can equate the God of Joseph Smith with the god of Gordon B. Hinckley. The two men have served entirely different churches, taught entirely different religions, and yes, worshipped entirely different gods.
Comment # 15 by Nick Literski | Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Nick,
McConkie gave at 1981 devotional talk on what he called “Deadly Heresies”–all of which were official LDS Church doctrine at earlier times. For instance, he denounced Adam/God and the doctrine that God continues to progress in knowledge and power—both of which were taught by Brigham Young himself. I remember finding it amusing that McConkie was giving his talk at a university named for a man who, according to the premise of his talk, devoted his life to preaching “deadly heresies.”
Peterson’s March 1982 talk was aimed against the idea that oen needed to have “a personal relationship with Christ.” Peterson warned against the idea, caling it dangerous and saying that LDS Church members should be focused on a relationship with and worship of Heavenly Father.
By the way, I share you feelings about “Amazing Grace.”
Comment # 16 by Rob | Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Nick,.
I agree that LDS Church theology constantly changes. All denominations of Mormons pick and chose which teachings of Joseph Smith theywant to accept. As a Reform Mormon, I’m going to embrace those principles that I can prove as consistent with the nature of reality. I find I’m a lot happier doing this than going for the fantasical and having to live in denial in order to maintain the illusion that I possess the truth.
Comment # 17 by Rob | Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
If anyone is interested, we’ve been discussing Jesus Camp over at Bloggernacle Times: http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=437
I saw Jesus Camp last Friday and weigh in with my opinion of the movie in a few different comments.
Comment # 18 by Matt Thurston | Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
This whole Jesus Camp thing scares me because I attended something similar in the early 90’s, late 80’s that used the Utah desert as a “boot camp”…but they killed some of the kids I was there with. I tell my story on my blog (not a shameless plug) and all I can say is…getting kids in the wilderness is a perfect medium for brainwashing. I should know, I’ve spent 15 years in therapy de-programming myself.
Thanks for this entry.
Comment # 19 by Alli | Nov 3, 2006 | Reply