Make of it what you will.
“We all face choices in the course of our lives, some of them with a siren song of wealth and prosperity; others appear less promising. Somehow the Lord has watched over and guided my choices, although it was not always evident at the time. . . .
“As I look back upon my life, I do so with a measure of wonder and awe. Everything good that has happened, including my marriage, I owe to my activity in the Church.”- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Seek Ye the Kingdom of God,” Ensign, May 2006, 81
I respect Gordon B. Hinckley quite a bit. Although Catholic, I feel that many decisions in my life and my relationships with my family and others has been strengthened through my activity in the Holy Catholic Church and my faith centered in Jesus Christ. So in sum, I can basically see where he’s coming from.
Why did you think this quote is interesting?
Because I either could say the same thing heartily or would never say such a thing, depending on what he means by “activity” and “Church.”
I probably agree with it, but you never know.
I’d like to hear more. Hinckley’s quote seems so banal to me because I hear that sort of thing from Mormons all the time. I never thought there might be something thought-provoking there.
By “Church”, of course he means the restored Church of Jesus Christ, i.e. the LDS Church. By “activity”, I think he means his participation in the Church’s callings and programs. From what I can understand, Mormons believe that when they do a lot of church stuff, they get blessings that enrich their lives and bring them closer to Heavenly Father. That stuff includes callings, talking to non-members about the gospel, raising the activity level of less-active members, going to seminary and institute, organizing and going to socials, bringing food to potlucks, feeding missionaries, and a bunch of other things.
But you must’ve already known all that. Under what conditions would you either agree or disagree with him?
The phrasing just makes me squirm a little. It makes it sound like he’s saying he owes it all to the efforts he made in his callings.
He probably didn’t mean that, but I guess I’m just very particular when it comes to the way things are phrased, especially LDS leaders…
Aaaaah! Now I see exactly what you’re getting at. I don’t blame you for squirming.
It makes it sound like he’s saying he owes it all to the efforts he made in his callings. He probably didn’t mean that . . .
Well, isn’t that kind of what is meant by “by grace we are saved, after all we can do”? I suspect he really did mean that. It’s a covenant, right? In other words, tit for tat. You get more active in the church, and God blesses you. Probably not exactly earning the blessing, maybe something more like making yourself worthy of it. Which isn’t any better in my opinion. I hope I’m not over-simplifying the way Latter-day Saints conceptualize it, but that sure is how it looks sometimes.
You know, if the LDS Church ever had a systematic theology, we wouldn’t have to wonder all the time about these things.
Amen and amen.
No no no. I am quite sure that President Hinckley did not intend to be expounding on the relationship between grace vs. works. His statement is perfectly consistent with the generally neo-Arminian position of the LDS on the subject – which is basically that God gave him a wonderful opportunity, he took that opportunity of his own free will and choice, and the Lord has blessed him immensely for it. No LDS person with their head screwed on straight thinks that they earn their blessings – one of the most famous passages in the Book of Mormon teaches otherwise:
So yes, the LDS teach that we have to come unto Christ before God will grant his most precious blessings -how could any Arminian theology teach otherwise? Does God reward sin? Does God cause us to serve and participate in the Church? On the LDS account, No God does not cause us to do anything, He just blesses us with far more than we could ever deserve on our own account, granting by his grace additional capacity to further the cause of all righteousness, hope, comfort and peace to boot.
The only reason to dispute this account is if one is an adherent of the doctrine of total depravity, where there literally is no good in man, that man is evil and incapable of good by nature. Aquinas did not believe that – if anything Aquinas leaned towards the same sort of “semi-Pelagianism” LDS theology has – that man has a *natural* capacity to recognize the truth of God in nature – It was a key part of his apologetics. LDS theology goes much further of course, denying Original Sin, but still maintaining a theodicy and a most critical need for the Atonement that Pelagius apparently rather lacked.
By the way, one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on LDS theological questions is that there are basically two LDS theologies – classical Mormonism, which is radically neo-Arminian, more like a hybrid of Eastern Orthodox theology and Open Theism and “neo-orthodox” Mormonism which is *much* closer to traditional Arminianism. They do not match all that well on a variety of questions, and for various historical reasons the issue is open to debate as to which tradition is the “true” Mormonism. The Church proper mostly avoids the issue as unnecessarily divisive.
No no no. I am quite sure that President Hinckley did not intend to be expounding on the relationship between grace vs. works.
I don’t think he did either, at least not consciously. I think what Brad and I were talking about is what does Hinckley’s quote say about the unreflected-upon assumptions that Mormons have.
I can’t speak for Brad, but I personally wasn’t thinking of the soteriological. I was thinking of the mundane. All the good things that have happened to Pres. Hinckley in this life, including his marriage, he owes to his activity in the church. Most of the examples he gives in his talk are when he met famous people in the world and in the church, and when he spread the gospel. Well, naturally, being active in the church was a necessary condition of those things happening. Mostly a pretty benign talk.
That one sentence though, is still tripping me up: “Everything good that has happened, including my marriage, I owe to my activity in the Church.”
So the thought that goes through my mind is this: he’s implying that if you want good things to happen to you, and if you want a great marriage, be active in the church. Isn’t this idea regularly repeated in sacrament meeting? At least on Fast Sunday? Or do I have the wrong impression? I’m not saying it’s official doctrine of the LDS Church, but it does seem like an idea that sort of floats around in Mormonism, and it seems to have been repeated in Pres. Hinckley’s talk. Pray and read your scriptures, work hard at your callings, go to ward activities, and good things will happen to you. I would be grateful to hear your thoughts.
What Greg said.
Perhaps President Hinckley is unconciously reflecting the bad sort of Pelagianism that unfortunately has had some currency in our Church, especially in the early nineteenth century. The process of preaching correct doctrine with regard to the soteriology of grace vs. works has been underway for half a century now, but it takes time to cure incorrect traditions. One material point is that the issue does not have anywhere near the prominence it has in conventional Christianity because we have a much larger theological base, and most often talk about principles from a rather different perspective – temple and covenant theology have an order of magnitude greater prominence than the doctrine of grace. Most LDS do not even know the latter by name – they have inherited a tradition that grace is a synonym for the idea that the wicked will be saved. Usually we use the word “Spirit” and “Atonement” everywhere other Christian traditions use the word grace.
As far as President Hinckley goes, however, I think you are making the man an offender for a word. “owes” is not literally correct here, “contingent” or “due to” would be more accurate. In LDS theology God does not make us do things nor can he properly bless wicked people. We are responsible for our actions, and our properly considered righteous in-and-of-ourselves, not inevitably worms. So we do not need prevenient grace to be able to have righteous desires or to accomplish any good thing, but we need it most seriously to sustain and comfort us in a world of misery, and to lead and guide us in the right direction, and to help us repent, and overcome sin and death. Ultimately however, we are the captains of our ship, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling before God. He is the lighthouse and the underwriter, making the journey possible, but not responsible for our desire to journey in his direction in the first place. Salvation is a collaborative effort, not simply a matter of God saving whom he will save and damning whom he will damn according to his sovereign will and pleasure.
So what say ye? What is the Catholic perspective on the Arminian question?
I should say “saved in their sins”, by the way, as well as recognize that certain neo-orthodox LDS have a position on this question closer to that of John Wesley, re the effects of the Fall, prevenient grace – what we call the Light of Christ, and something resembling a doctrine of total depravity. Classical Mormonism is rather more liberal on those issues however. If you are interested in theology and want it delivered to you on a plate, Mormonism is not the place to be – it is great if you want freedom to consider and ponder these issues on your own without some hyper-definitive Protestant style creed weighing you down.
One can cross much of the theological spectrum and still be a member in good standing, as long as you can defend your positions from scripture. Sometimes it is frustrating, other times I think such theological diversity is a good thing. As a culture we have an inclusive identity like the Jews, not inclined to kick people out for mere differences of opinion, as long as basic behavioral standards are met. A community of Saints, more than a community of orthodoxy.
Half of the LDS world doesn’t care about the latter, as long as the fundamentals are correct – and one of the fundamentals is service in the Church and Kingdom of God, again salvation as a collective enterprise, building a Zion society, not just a matter of private discipline. So while some LDS have a distorted picture of the role of grace and the Atonement, the idea that serving God in his Church here on the earth results in blessings – joy, service, congeniality, brotherly love, and so on is a fundamental aspect of the LDS tradition. We focus much more on salvation *as a community* – a City of God here on earth, than the Protestants who tend to focus on salvation as individuals. Surely Catholics can appreciate that.
In our theology a failure to establish Zion is our fault – there is no Original Sin – it is incumbent upon us to establish the City of God here and now, not there and then. That doesn’t mean we do it by ourselves, of course – again God is the lighthouse and the underwriter – but it does mean Zion cannot be established without serious work on our part. That is the Gospel of Work – not work to “earn” blessings, but work to build God’s kingdom – to love and serve one another – to establish peace and harmony – closely related to the social gospel movement of the late 19th century. Isn’t Catholic monasticism much the same?