Comments on: “Getting” the Mormons

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:29:31 +0000

Glenn, you did answer it on your own. Ex nihilo (creation from nothing) is a core traditional Christian belief, particularly in the context of the argument over the age of the earth and the nature of God and man. Ex nihilo allows those who believe it to ignore things like carbon dating and claim the earth is only thousands of years old. (created fully mature, without evolutionary influence) Also, “physical material” is seen as the corrupt aspect of our soul, which explains why #5 (God is a material being.) would be on the list, as well.

Richard L. Bushman (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling) said at a fireside last week that he believes one of the most under-explored aspects in academia of JS’s teachings is his concept of the cosmos, so I would say that the critique in 1842 is amazingly astute.

By: Sam MB

Sam MB — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:23:06 +0000

Glenn, he was writing to Methodists at a time when it was becoming clear that the Mormons had a shot at an enduring utopia in Nauvoo and sympathy over Missouri was starting to wane.
Yes, matter is eternal is an attack on creation ex nihilo and aligned Smith more with metaphysical materialists than with mainline Christianity.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Tue, 01 May 2007 12:42:42 +0000

Sam, Do you have information on the context of this critic’s six points? Who was his audience? Was it in reaction to anything?

As a believing Mormon, none of his statements seemed outrageous or unfair in its depiction of LDS beleifs (and sure, I would be comfortable with Whitney presenting that list as long as she put it in its historical context), but I think it is a safe assumption to believe that for this Methodist critic, these six points were quite outrageous.

Why?

I am not a student of history, so I haven’t seen a lot of these early Mormon critics, but it struck me as odd to see “matter is eternal” make the top six.

Ardis, this is a new idea to me — I did not know that “matter is eternal” is contrary to traditional Christianity. Is the blaspheme here the suggestion that God didn’t “create” the matter? (maybe I answered my own question there –that seems to make sense).

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Tue, 01 May 2007 01:46:29 +0000

If you allow Kidder’s bald statements to stand as shorthand for the fuller doctrines implied by those statements, it’s remarkable. His scope is broad and points directly to the ways Mormonism is utterly different from generic Christianity.

By: Jettboy

Jettboy — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:27:47 +0000

Fair enough, harsh criticism. That isn’t the same as anger. As for it not about myself, I would agree if “anger” wasn’t such a personalized perception of my response.

By: Jettboy

Jettboy — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:17:56 +0000

I think the difference is everyone is answering the first question where I am answering the last. I still think Kidder didn’t do a good job even after 12 years – although much better than most of the period short of alowing Mormons to tell it themselves.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:12:08 +0000

“Angry characterization? Is that because of what I said or how I am percieved [sic].”

Jettboy, as always perception counts for a lot. That said, when you characterize someone’s writing as “so full of holes and complete blanks that it looks like it was written by a freshman high school student,” that’s not sarcasm — that’s straight-up harsh criticism. To call it “only observation” isn’t quite right, is it?

but you’re not the topic here — the summary of mormonism is. Jimbob’s got it right.

By: smb

smb — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:07:57 +0000

Re: Nauvoo as Zion. I agree it was a very complex issue. They continued to have wistful feelings about the original Zion even as they were establishing anew something like a replacement for it. I think the Adam-ondi-Ahman traditions about Adam’s patriarchal farewell and the apocalyptic rethinking of Daniel’s Ancient of Days argue for Missouri, but the temple and the hotel argue for Nauvoo, even though Nauvoo had a stake, which would not, by contemporary taxonomy, have referred to Zion proper. I’m excited to look at the PhD.

Jettboy: I’m impressed that Kidder didn’t misunderstand core beliefs, even if he didn’t like them. That’s relatively rare and fairly useful insight about how people negotiate denominational and sectarian identity.

By: lamonte

lamonte — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:02:53 +0000

It seems this list is quite accurate, as has been noted above, considering the Chruch was only 12 years old that time. At least he didn’t claim we weren’t Christians.

By: Jettboy

Jettboy — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:02:49 +0000

Angry characterization? Is that because of what I said or how I am percieved. There wasn’t any anger intended – only observation. My comment might have been a little sarcastic, but not angry.