Analyyttinen katselmus kirjan How Wide The Divide? avulla

Truth-telling And Shifting Theologies: An Analytical Look At How Wide The Divide by Craig L. Blomberg & Stephen E. Robinson

Salt Lake City Sunstone 1997 Symposium
Thursday, 7 August 1997. Session 166, 3:30 — 4:30 pm.

Dave Combe

Johdatus

How Wide the Divide?1, joka julkaistiin huhtikuussa [1997], on alustavaa keskustelua MAP-kirkon ja evankelisten akateemikkojen välillä. He pyrkivät ensin etsimään yhteistä pohjaa ja sitten hahmottamaan noiden kahden uskonnollisen perinteen eroja. Tri. Blomberg on Uuden testamentin tutkimuksen professori Denverin seminaarissa; tri. Robinson on muinaisten kirjoitusten professori Brigham Youngin yliopistossa. Kummallakaan kirjailijalla ei ollut tilaisuutta olla kanssamme tänään, vaikka heidät kutsuttiin [symposiumiin].

Kirja on dialogimuodossa, kummankin kirjoittaessa vuorotellen. Omissa luvunpuoliskoissaan he käsittelevät oman perinteensä opetuksia ja arvostelevat ja kommentoivat toistensa materiaalia. He käsittelevät vuoron perään pyhiä kirjoituksia, Jumalaa ja palvomista, Kristusta ja kolminaisuutta sekä pelastusta.2 Tänään esittämäni essee ei ole sinänsä kirjan arvostelu, vaan käytän kirjaa kohtana, josta aloitan oman, hyvin henkilökohtaisen näkemykseni aikamme mormonismista.

Oikeaoppisuus, pyhät kirjoitukset ja jumalallinen ilmoitus

Kuultuamme, että "puhdas mormonioppi voi olla liikkuva maali"3, luemme, että:

... mormoniortodoksian määrittelevät kirkon standarditeokset (raamattu, Mormonin kirja, Opit ja Liitot ja Kallisarvoinen helmi) niin kuin kirkon johtavat auktoriteetit — nykyiset apostolit ja profeetat — niitä tulkitsevat.4

Tri. Robinson selvittää näkemystään lisää sulkemalla erityisesti pois tiettyä, opin oikeellisuuden määrittelyyn käytettävää materiaalia. Näitä ovat

... kommentaareja, puheita, laajennuksia ja spekulointeja ... millään näistä, voisin lisätä, ei ole kanonisoitua asemaa. Protestantit varmaan ymmärtävät eron yhtäällä Lutherin, Calvinin tai Wesleyn erinomaisten tulkitsevien tekstien ja toisaalla itse raamatun auktoriteetin välillä. Sama ero on olemassa yhtäällä Brigham Youngin tai Orson Prattin puheissa annettujen lausuntojen tai kirjoitusten ja toisaalla kanonisoitujen standarditeosten välillä ... Brigham Youngin, Orson Prattin tai muiden spekulatiiviset lausunnot eivät ole kanonisoituja eivätkä kirkon virallista oppia ...5

Mitään muuta kuin kanonisoitua materiaalia ei voida käyttää määrittelemään MAP-kirkon oppia; lisäksi tulevat kuitenkin lausunnot, jotka on varustettu Ensimmäisen presidenttikunnan ja Kahdentoista koorumin allekirjoituksilla.6 "Kirkon takuu opin oikeellisuudesta lepää lähinnä elävän profeetan harteilla, ja vain toissijaisesti kirjoitetun tekstin säilyttämisessä",7 selittää Robinson, korottaen näin elävien profeettojen, näkijöiden ja ilmoituksensaajien sanat sekä kanonisoidun tekstin että, niiden jatkeena, aiempien profeettojen, näkijöiden ja ilmoituksensaajien allekirjoitusten yläpuolelle. Eli, jälleen kuten muualla tekstissä ilmaistaan: "mormoniopin parametrit ovat selvät — pyhät kirjoitukset ovat oppia, puheet eivät."8

Joseph Smithin välityksellä tulleen ilmoituksen kautta perustettuna mormonismi on jatkanut apostoleja ja profeettoja kahdessa ylimmässä pappeuskoorumissa, Ensimmäisen presidenttikunnan ja Kahdentoista koorumin perinnettä ja pitää uskonkappaleenaan sitä, että Jumala antaa jatkuvasti ilmoitusta ohjaavana voimana kirkon hallinnassa.9

Opin ja liittojen kirjan luvussa 68 julistetaan:

... Ja se, minkä he puhuvat Pyhän Hengen johtamina, on oleva pyhä kirjoitus, on oleva Herran tahto, on oleva Herran mieli, on oleva Herran sana, on oleva Herran ääni ja Jumalan voima pelastukseksi.10

Siitä huolimatta, että tämä ilmoitus saatiin ennen kuin Kahdentoista koorumi järjestettiin, osoittaa vanhin Packerin puhe lokakuun 1996 konferenssissa helposti, että useimmat mormonit uskovat tämän koskevan Ensimmäistä presidenttikuntaa ja Kahtatoista. Hän siteeraa tätä jaetta kuvatessaan, miten kaksitoista apostolia kutsuttiin tehtäväänsä.11

This builds into Mormonism a methodology to apply the canon to new situations in an authoritative way, through continuing revelation, meaning either new revelation, or allowing a reinterpretation of existing canon to a new situation. Given this, Robinson's view that late 20th century Mormonism ought not to be judged by 19th century Mormonism seems reasonable. Yet, there seems to be the suggestion that the words spoken as defined in the revelation, "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" may be uncanonized scripture. Our challenge is determining what among the "commentary, sermons, expansions and speculations"12 meets the definition of scripture by coming to us by means of the Holy Ghost acting upon the speaker. Robinson's definition of what can be used for doctrine, while eliminating from consideration some of what he views as the extremes of 19th century Mormon expression, also may be eliminating some scripture as Section 68 defines it, as well as helping to maintain our current more organizational, bureaucratic Mormonism, divorced from its more charismatic past.

Vanhin Harold B. Leen kommentti on opettavainen. Puhuessaan BYU:ssa vuonna 1964, vanhin Lee huomautti:

Emme saa ajatella, että jokainen johtavien auktoriteettien puhuma sana on innoitettu, tai että Pyhä Henki on heidän päällään kaikessa, mitä he lukevat tai kirjoittavat.13

Elder Lee's more limited sense of a sort of near-infallibility15 for THE prophet, seer and revelator, seems to have developed into something more in recent years. President Faust's message in the August 1996 Ensign seems expands the principle.16 "How, then, one might ask, can we be sure, that as promised [as an aside, note these are now plural], the prophets, seers and revelators will never lead the people astray?". He cites the scriptural injunction that decisions of these church councils must be unanimous17, and continues, "The requirement of unanimity provides a check on bias and personal idiosyncrasies. It ensures that God rules through the spirit...". Then follows his comment that "we make no claim of INDIVIDUAL [emphasis added] infallibility or perfection as the prophets, seers and revelators", implicitly suggesting a group infallibility.

Vertaa tätä George Q. Cannonin huomautuksiin:

Veljet, älkää panko luottamustanne ihmiseen, on hän sitten piispa, apostoli tai presidentti. Jos niin teette, he jättävät teidät pulaan joskus tai jossakin; he tekevät väärin tai näyttävät niin tekevän, ja teidän tukenne on poissa; mutta jos panemme luottamuksemme Jumalaan, hän ei koskaan jätä meitä pulaan. Kun miehet ja naiset luottavat ainoastaan Häneen, heidän uskonsa ei horju, vaikka kirkon korkein viranhaltija astuisi sivuun.18

Hänen kirkkoaan ei johdeta harhaan. Älkää koskaan pelätkö sitä. Mikäli sen johtajissa olisi sellaista taipumusta, Hän poistaisi heidät [viroistaan].19

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.20

I have never pretended nor do I confess to have received revelations. I never said I has a revelation except so far as God has shown to me that so-called Mormonism is God's divine truith; that is all...Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far as taht is concerned, I say yes, I have had impressions of the spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not revelations.21

Tarkastelkaamme kahta hiljattaista selitystä siitä, miten ilmoitus toimii nykykirkossa.

Hugh Hewitt haastatteli vanhin Maxwellia PBS-sarjaa "Jumalan etsintä Amerikassa". Maxwell puhuu "the voice in the mind", that "revelation doesn't have to be spectacular or global", that "it's the personalness of the revelation that matters...". When specifically asked, "...What is that process like?", Elder Maxwell explained:

It's the voice of the spirit. It's the voice in the mind. It's the Lord speaking to us in such a way that when men may have had different opinions on something, then comes the prophetic intervention. There is a calmness and a serenity, and we vote to sustain that action...22

More recently, President Hinckley, interviewed by Don Lattin of the San Francisco Chronicle,24 identified revelation as "one thing that's different" when asked about differences between LDS theology and that of other churches:

Q: ... As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?

A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received.

Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind....

As Man Is, God Once Was ...

Robinson's definition of what can be used to determine orthodox doctrine, the canonized Standard Works, and their interpretation by the living prophets was discussed earlier. It is significant that he does accept two additional statements, that while not canonized, "they are so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that this technical point has become moot."26 They are, first, Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may become",27 and Joseph Smith's sermon at the funeral of King Follett, in which the prophet taught that God is an exalted man.28

Presidentti Gordon B. Hinckley in a series of recent interviews has addressed this principle.

Don Lattin, of the San Francisco Chronicle, interviewed President Hinckley in March 1997. The interview was published on April 13th:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Q: So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. Knowledge, learning is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.29

Taylor: Have I ever known any Mormons who, after speaking with them, have I come to believe that they know Jesus Christ in the same way that I do; that they are true disciples of Jesus, the answer would be, yes. But if you are asking me, do I think that Mormonism as a system of belief and practice is the same as what we ordinarily mean by Christianity, I think my answer would be no.

Ostling: The major doctrinal difference centers on the nature of God.

Taylor: The Bible says in the Book of John, Chapter 4, God is spirit. But the Mormons say that God is flesh and bone. You get a picture of a God that is progressing. So you see that man is made of the same stuff, as it were, as God is; and that man is progressing toward deityhood, and God once was like man. So this is a very different picture of Christianity.

Ostling: President Gordon Hinckley says the concept of God having been a man is not stressed any longer, but he does believe that human beings can become gods in the afterlife.

Hinckley: Well, they can achieve a godly status, yes, of course they can, eternal progression. We believe in the progression of the human soul. Ours is a forward-looking religion. It's an upward looking religion. We believe in the eternity and infinity of the human soul, and its great possibilities.30

In an interview with TIME, President Hinckley seemed intent on downplaying his faith's distinctiveness. The church's message, he explained, "is a message of Christ. Our church is Christ-centered. He's our leader. He's our head. His name is the name of our church." At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that "it's of course an ideal. It's a hope for a wishful thing," but later affirmed that "yes, of course they can." (He added that women could too, "as companions to their husbands. They can't conceive a king without a queen.") On whether the church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it...I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."31

President Hinckley's suggestion that we don't emphasize this doctrine seems strange as well. A two part lesson on The King Follett funeral sermon was included in the Relief Society manual for 1988. One of the section headings is, in boldface: "God is an Exalted Man".32 The current Church manual for the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class covers this topic in lesson 47.33 And, a student manual for Institute class Religion 345, Presidents of the Church, published in 1979, covers the topic in chapter 13.34 True, it is not explicitly stated in canonized scripture. But it is clearly suggested in both Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132, verse 17-20, which Robinson specifically mentions35, as well as in Section 84, verses 33-38, which he does not. Robinson also notes:

What do Latter-day Saints mean by "gods"? Latter-day Saints do not, or at least should not believe that they will ever be independent in all eternity from their Father in heaven or from their Savior or from the Holy Spirit. Those who are exalted by his grace will always be "gods" (always with a small g, even in the Doctrine and Covenants) by grace, by an extension of his power, and will always be subordinate to the Godhead. In the Greek philosophical sense — and in the "orthodox" theological sense — such contingent beings would not even rightly be called "gods," because they never become "the ground of all being" and are forever subordinate to their Father.36

As the Father had taken His upward course in worlds before this, so Jesus Christ followed in his footsteps in every respect; therefore he is entitled to sit down at the right hand of God in the heavens, to sit on his throne and be one with the Father in all things; and all the power and glory, and dominion that the Father hath he conferred also upon Jesus. And the promise to the sons of God on the earth is, that if they will follow in the footsteps of Jesus, they shall be also exalted and shall partake of that glory which he partakes of and they shall become Gods, even the sons of God, and "all things" shall be theirs. And we are told in the revelations of God to us in the latter days, that if we are faithful in all things, "all that the father hath" shall be given unto us. We shall become like Him, and we shall receive power, dominion and glory similar to that which he enjoys, only he shall be above us, God as our Father, and Jesus Christ our elder brother...We will comprehend everything we learned when we dwelt in the flesh; and we will be clothed upon with the spirit and power of God in its fullness, and kingdoms and power and glory eternal will be given unto us. We shall have the gift of eternal end endless increase. Our families will be with us and be the beginning of our dominion, and upon that basis we shall build forever.37

Conclusion

Let me conclude with two quotes written not by Dr. Robinson, but by Dr. Blomberg.

"We each speak officially for no one other then ourselves, but unofficially we reflect a fair cross-section of the religious traditions we represent. Both of us stand in the progressive wing of our movements, and yet we clearly dissociate ourselves from the "dissidents" who flirt with the very boundaries and established parameters of our respective faiths.41

I would be overjoyed if I learned that there might be an "Evangelical Mormonism," just as increasing numbers of Roman Catholics or Seventh-day Adventists are abandoning their legacies of works-centered religion. But then I would need to raise a further important question: How widespread in LDS circles are views like Robinson's?42

President Benson's well-known talk, based on Doctrine and Covenants 84:54 - 58, that the church is under "condemnation until they [we] repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon"44 was in my experience viewed as a call to return to studying the Book of Mormon and its teachings. Robinson has a more expansive view.

...Prof. Blomberg and other evangelicals have misjudged what is happening in the contemporary LDS Church when they refer to the LDS "modifying" their doctrines and making other "changes"...Ezra Taft Benson...emphasized the importance of personal study of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures for the Latter-day Saints. He also reminded us that the Lord has not been pleased with the gap between scripturally revealed beliefs and the level of "popular" LDS understanding.45

Quoting Dr. Robinson, again:

The only change precipitated by President Benson is that Mormonism now seeks to define itself in terms of its own canonized Scriptures rather then the ... speculative sermons of the nineteenth century or the popular theology of the twentieth century. I would argue that this is not an innovation but a course correction, a return to original headings. Inevitably, non-LDS will see it as a change in doctrine, but viewed from within the church it is merely a reemphasis on the basics - our basics.

Either way, it is true that the LDS Church is somewhat different today then it was a decade ago, largely as a result of President Benson's emphasis on the Book of Mormon. I find it highly revealing that as LDS theology has moved from late nineteenth-century rhetoric to the specific doctrines of the Book of Mormon, it has also been seen as moving closer to the Evangelicals...47

Is this the trend of late twentieth-century Mormonism? In which light should President Hinckley's recent remarks be seen: a change in doctrine or a reemphasis on basics? For this question, I do not have an answer. But let me close quoting from two friend's private correspondence with me which reflects in part the questions raised when living in times of unexplained possible change:

...the constant change of church doctrine and practices is dis- empowering since the individual must look to someone outside of themselves (moral conscience) and any written record (the Standard Works) in the form of the President of the Church...48

The idea that God was once a man is an amazingly humanistic theology. It affirms an essential similarity between humanity and divinity. It can be used by people to foster a sense of worth and even independence. On the other hand, the authority structure of the church serves to separate most people (except the Brethren) from the divine, by having the Brethren mediate between the two. The more God is thought of as essentially different from us, the more we need the brethren as mediators...There seems to always have been a dynamic tension between Mormon authoritarianism and its communitarianism. It's not hard to see which tendency predominates today.49

Notes

1. Blomberg, Craig L. and Stephen E. Robinson. How Wide The Divide?: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997). 228 pages. ISBN: 0-8308-1991-6 LCCN: 96-051534 $ 11.99 [Hereafter in footnotes as HWTD.]
2. For another brief review of the book's organization, see Publisher's Weekly, 24 March 1987, p. 76.
3. HWTD, p. 14.
4. HWTD, p. 15.
5. HWTD, p. 85. This definition of orthodoxy is vital to Dr. Robinson's discussion of Mormon issues; he repeats in varying ways throughout the book. See for example pages 15, 63-4, 68, 73-4, 76, 83, 93, 135-6, 140, 162-3.
6. HWTD, p. 208, footnote 32.
7. HWTD, p. 57; same idea is expressed on pages 58, 65, 68, and others.
8. HWTD, pp. 73-74.
9. 9th Article of Faith
10. Doctrine and Covenants, Section 68:4. Note that this section is not addressed to the First Presidency or to the Twelve; neither of these quorums have been organized as of the date of the revelation in 1831. The revelation is addressed to "all those who are ordained unto this priesthood", and is addressed to Orson Hyde and others. However, it would be my view that section 68 is generally understood to express the place of revelation in the Church, and within the bounds of the stewardship of the person receiving the revelation. of general applicability to all faithful members, including those, such as women, without priesthood.
11. Packer, Boyd K. "The Twelve Apostles", Ensign, Nov. 1996, p. 8 (footnote 28).
12. HWTD, p. 85. See also footnote 5.
13. Lee, Harold B. "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator", Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; July 8, 1964, p. 8; typeset in my possession
14. Ibid, p. 9.
15. I do not intend to imply perfection in teaching and speaking by use of this term, rather, that the view would be that in the broadest sense, prophets might make mistakes in doctrine and belief, but not to a point to lose the ability to be lead by Christ. That this would be orthodox thinking is suggested by Bruce R. McConkie's letter of 19 February 1981, to Eugene England, where Elder McConkie states that it is his opinion that Brigham Young, in terms of what Elder McConkie called the Adam God "theory", had taught error.
16. Faust, James A. "Continuing Revelation", Ensign, Aug. 1996, pp. 2-7.
17. Doctrine and Covenants 107:27
18. George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star, 53:673 - 74.
19. Hinckley, Gordon B. "Our Testimony to the World", Ensign, May 1997, p. 83.
20. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, p. 95.
21. Joseph F. Smith, before Congress, Reed Smoot Hearings, Volume One, page 483. 1904. Let me haste to add her that this comment predates by a number of years President Smith's "Vision of the Redemption of the Dead", since canonized and added to the Doctrine and Covenants.
22. Elder Maxwell's interview is published in full in: Hewitt, Hugh. Searching For God in America. (Word Publishing: 1996.) 432 pages. $27.99. ISBN: 0-8499-1308-X. Selections from the interview were also published with permission, in Sunstone, Issue 104, December 1996, p. 80.
23. Ibid.
24. Musings of the Main Mormon, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April 1997.
25. Copy of e-mail in my possession, 7 May 1997, Mormon-l. HWTD, p. 15.
26. HWTD, pp. 85-86.
27. HWTD, p. 86; 209, footnote 12.
28. HWTD, p. 85; 209, footnote 13.
29. Lattin, Don. "Musings of the Main Mormon", San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April 1997. [Downloaded from the Chronicle WWW page]
30. Transcript downloaded from here.
31. Biema, David Van. "Kingdom Come", Time, August 4, 1997, p. 56.
32. Relief Society Manual, 1988, published by the church.
33. Gospel Principles, published by the Church.
34. Presidents of the Church, 1979.
35. HWTD, p. 85.
36. HWTD, p. 86.
37. Penrose, Charles W. "The Personality of God...", Journal of Discourses, Volume 26, pp. 20-29.
38. HWTD, p. 77.
39. HWTD, p. 124.
40. Doctrine and Covenants, Section 19:10.
41. HWTD, p. 25.
42. HWTD, p. 182.
43. HWTD, pp. 182-3.
44. HWTD, pp. 67-69; see also President Benson's Conference talk, October 1986, Saturday morning session.
45. HWTD, p. 67.
46. HWTD, p. 68.
47. HWTD, p. 68 - 69.
48. Personal correspondence in my possession.
49. Personal correspondence in my possession.