Comments on: Christian Common Sense and the Shape of Mormonism

By: Jared T

Jared T — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:00:28 +0000

Thanks Ryan. I don’t have anything to add, but good food for thought.

By: WVS

WVS — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:05:58 +0000

Fine observations Ryan. Early Mormonism was surely bathed in a certain commonality of Protestantism. But I think as Joseph developed his theology, it was the distinctiveness that was emphasized. And I think grace in particular was buried in priesthood. In Utah, this transition was completed in the gradual reformulation of temple theology. Quite a few of the commenters have noted the post-millennial theology that was at work. Mormonism at least imbibed some of this and on some levels that is anti-grace.

Finally, by Utah, much of the Mormon population was British/European. A wonderful mix of social/religious tradition came with them to help form an interpretation of Joseph Smith’s revelations in Utah. That, among other effects were much less important among the other Saints who didn’t come west. Thanks for this Ryan.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:59:14 +0000

I think there was another issue in the air (besides Grace and Works). That was Priesthood.
Can one be saved without Ordinances that can only be obtained by using a Priesthood?

By: Ryan T.

Ryan T. — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:03:10 +0000

Great point, Kristine, that talking about Mormon belief in general is reductive. I do wonder if your point about the permeability of Mormon doctrine might have actually make it easier for other Christian doctrines to intermix and hold sway.

By: Ryan T

Ryan T — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:50:56 +0000

To an extent, smb, I think your point is well made. There certainly was a (fairly strong) reaction against Calvinism and its dogmatic elements. But I think you erase grace from the picture too much. Consider Brooks Holifield’s treatment of the debate over grace between Methodists and Calvinists [1]. He is careful to show that although Methodists reacted against Calvinist conceptions of grace, they did not stray too far from it; they nuanced their understanding of grace to make room for some voluntary action. See also his section on “Populist Calvinism,” which suggests that populism and hyper-Calvinism could actually coexist. Baptist theology, he says, was divided on this point, but was generally “an unstable mix of hyper-Calvinist tradition, immediate revelation, and cultural resentment [2]. Finally, although Methodists, Baptists, and others were rejecting Calvinism, they were also up against growing Unitarianism and Universalism, which taught pure moral choice. This kept, I think, mainstream evangelicals from straying too far from a gracious God. So were they “against” grace? Seems to me that grace still retained substantial purchase and key status despite initiatives that sought to temper it, which puts me in line with your initial statement.

[1] E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 268.
[2] Ibid., 286-290.

By: smb

smb — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:31:37 +0000

Sorry, finally read the whole post. I think that the reading of grace as commonsensical hence not preserved is actually historically incorrect for a lot of Mormonism that derived directly from JSJ. not entirely wrong, as there are many different Mormonisms in that early period, but grace being commonsensical is a problem for that period. Many LDS and other populists were relatively strongly against grace as a remnant of outmoded Calvinism.

By: smb

smb — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:23:55 +0000

Kristine is absolutely right. Those LDS from Methodism tended to be more “Arminian,” and it’s true that most members of these “populist” groups tended to be anti-Calvinist, but it’s also the case that various groups, including Baptists, independent believers, and lapsed Presbygationalists would still have some sympathy for a more Calvinistic view.

It’s also important to remember that our (late 20th-cent) specific flavor of grace vs. works is not actually identical even to theirs.

Some would suggest that Mormonism doesn’t even really fit well into this current notion of grace vs. works, particularly because what we mean by works has evolved so substantially. And how does metaphysical priesthood integrate into grace vs. works? It’s sort of a metaphysical variant of grace, isn’t it? Or is the sacerdotalism somehow integrated into works?

I’d be careful to distinguish pietism in its variants (what most of us now mean by works) from sacramentalism or sacerdotalism, which the early LDS believed at least in part (that’s certainly the model JSJ was preaching).

By: Kristine

Kristine — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:07:41 +0000

Ryan–great ideas. I think one probably has to account for differing emphases within “Mormon” doctrine by individual converts, already among the earliest Saints. It seems likely to me that the primacy of grace was contested territory, even very early. In fact, it seems possible that “official doctrine” was an even shakier category in the early church than it is now, so to speak of “the doctrine” is always a little reductive. For evidence of differing perceptions of where Mormons ought to come down in the grace and works debate, one might look at one of Emma Smith’s hymnals in comparison to the ones W.W. Phelps compiled, or the Manchester hymnal that become the dominant one. (Only one of them contains “Amazing Grace,” for instance).

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:00:23 +0000

#16: I am going to pick a safe one: large Mormon families. For my parents, a large Mormon family was 10,12, or 14 kids. Now, it’s 4-7(?) I would guess, in the future, we will see an even more average number defining a Mormon family.

By: kevinf

kevinf — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:28:12 +0000

Ryan, I’ll add my own note of appreciation for this well thought out and written post. In regards to grace, I’ve noticed the gradual return of grace into our vocabulary, and our own somewhat unique understanding of grace and its relation to works over the last two or three decades.

I wanted to respond to this question, though: “What do we take for granted and central now that will become foreign and peripheral to subsequent generations?”

One great example that I believe is already becoming foreign and peripheral is polygamy. Growing up when I did in the 50′s and 60′s, polygamy was not that far removed, and when the word was mentioned, it primarily was associated as being a part of our theology. 30 years on, and the word polygamy seems to be more often mentioned in terms of the fundamentalist/apostate groups, or as a historical reference, and not as a relevant part of our own culture. What once was familiar has become for the most part foreign.