Mormons and Pelegianism

Posted on August 16, 2008
Filed Under Philosophy, Religion |

Pelagius PlatePelegianism is a topic that often comes up (especially from critics) regarding Mormonism. While I think philosophers like Sterling McMurrin vastly overstate the degree of Pelgianism in Mormonism I suspect that if you asked most Mormons a series of common questions most would tend towards Pelagian answers. Of course one problem is that the kind of assumptions in traditional Christianity don’t always translate well to Mormon assumptions. This often leads to misrepresentations - especially with differing concepts like that of nature. As I said in he above link, I think Mormons are at best closer to the movement termed semi-pelagianism.

I bring all this up because of a very intriguing post on faith, works and Pelagianism at Alexander Pruss’s blog. He suggests there are two orthogonal debates going on. One is whether grace is necessary for salvation vs. whether one can be saved by ones own efforts and then the faith vs. works issue. As he notes the stereotypical answers from Protestants and Catholics are quite different.

Now it seems to me that the issue gets a tad more complex in LDS theology since a significant (but hardly universal) view in LDS thought consists of two different covenants and thus two different senses of salvation. The first, based upon Abr 3:25, is the idea that in a council of premortal spirits all agreed to come here to see if they would do everything God asked. Now most (but once again not necessarily all) Mormons think this was possible (since would it be just to have an unfulfillable commandment). However following Rom 3:23 they feel that every human other than Christ will fail at this. Thus this strain of LDS thought is close to what Pruss attributes to Pelagius. “Pelagius thought it would be really hard to be saved without grace, but it could in principle be done.” Mormons think the same thing and think it was so hard that only Christ could do it but that in theory it was doable.

Now since, following Paul in Romans, all sinned and are lost a different sense of salvation is necessary in order to obtain the first sense of salvation. This sense of salvation is much closer to the Protestant sense than the former sense. In this sense we take on Christ who through his grace makes us able to fulfill the first sense. This is all wrapped up in the notion of deification for Mormons as the ultimate meaning of the traditional senses of sanctification and justification. That is Christ makes us pure enough to fulfill our first covenant and promises us that through faith we will be brought to that state (even if here in mortality we are not like that)

There are some subtle differences here from Protestantism but I’ll not dwell on it. The point is that while there are some similarities to Pelagianism this tends to arise out of conflating some issues in Mormon theology.

Regarding the other issues Pruss raises regarding faith. I think most Mormons adopt the more Protestant view for salvation from our sins. That is salvation comes by faith and faith requires grace. (This is the typical reading of the first part of D&C 93) However clearly, in terms of the first covenant Mormons are much more Catholic in their views. However in terms of the reality of the place of all mortals in this life other than Christ Mormons tend to see our place in Pruss’s bottom right category. That is salvation is based on love or morally good actions (the first covenant) but that to do this requires grace. Which is ultimately what I read D&C 93 teaching.

Anyway, read Pruss’s post along with the comments as they are quite interesting.

BTW - an other ancient movement Mormons get accused of reproducing is Arianism. However as I’ve argued, there’s not a whole lot of similarity there.

Comments

2 Responses to “Mormons and Pelegianism”
1 Gerald Smith on August 18th, 2008 10:52 am

I agree that we fit more of a Semi-Pelagianism. But that’s because there’s more to the Mormon salvation story than to any other Christian view.

We view salvation as meaning two things: saved from death and hell; and exaltation.

In viewing our claims to grace, etc., we need to take the additional look at how they play out on both general salvation and specific exaltation/salvation.

I also agree that we are not Arians. We tend closer to Origen’s view of the Godhead, with the Son being separate from the Father, but still a God (subordinate to the Father). As I understand it, this is the view that Eusebius the historian took into the Council of Nice, and was exiled for it.

I think our position involves a bit more than Origen though. I think there is some kind of substantial unity. While Christ is subordinate to the Father it is really only in a few minor senses from what I can see.

Leave a Reply