I take exception to Marilyn Gibson’s letter, “Placing Mormon faith” (Forum, Oct. 20), when she claims that Episcopalians “don’t think Mormons are Christian.” While I applaud her ability to back up her research using the trusted source Wikipedia, I urge her to broaden her research before asserting that my religion does not consider our Latter-day Saint brothers and sisters to be Christian.
Read it all.
For the elves — the “read it all” link does not appear to be working.
Oops — didn’t see the link at the top at first…
[blockquote] It might interest Gibson to know that when Carolyn Tanner Irish, the 10th bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah, was confirmed a member of the Episcopal Church, her LDS baptism “was recognized as validâ€[/blockquote]
Mr. Stevenson might be excused for ignorance of the state of Episcopalian theology, but that hardly causes this argument to indicate christian validity for Morman baptism.
I don’t think Mr. Stevenson is ignorant of the state of what passes for Episcopalian theology. Rather, he states the mess it is most clearly.
In reading the comments below the artcile, I think “Kalifornia Kid” draws the proper conclusion from Mr. Stevenson’s flawed syllogism.
BlueOntario: On re-reading, I believe you are correct. Mr. Stevenson seems to be saying that the Mormons are at least as christian as progressive Episcopalians are, an argument with which I can find no fault.
From some contacts I have had with TEC leadership in recent years, I really doubt many in TEC actually consider themselves “christian” any longer–far too narrow, limiting, and exclusive of a label, really. And I am not making an idle, “snarky” comment here. It will take very little time before the utterly secular identity of these people is fully manifested.
Someone with better knowledge of the history of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah can offer a better response but as I understand it the Episcopal Church from the beginning has declined to enter into theological polemic with the LDS church. Other churches have felt led to express opinions on LDS theology, but the Episcopal Church has not done so – as far as I know.
You should read Bishop Tuttle’s, “Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop”. He views the many of the LDS of his day as fanatics and some of their theology as evil (though also has many things to say about virtuous and kindhearted LDS folks he encountered). He considered that Mormon “priestly domination” should be opposed by all Americans but the tools of opposition ought to be, “reason, argument, education, enlightenment, influence, persuasive truth.”
#3 FWLIW Bishops Tuttle initially re-baptized everyone who joined the Episcopal Church from the LDS. He later changed his mind and judged Mormon baptism’s valid. If Bishop Tanner Irish’s Mormon baptism was recognized as valid, such views go back to the very first Episcopal missionaries to Utah. That doesn’t make it right. In fact I think, it’s a mistaken view but it has a history that stretches back well into the nineteenth century.
I am a little shocked that at least some Episcopalians, back before the Fall, accepted Mormon baptisms as valid. That just defies comprehension. I have no such sentiments about the modern TEO. Today the Episcopal Organization is mostly high church Unitarianism so I am not really surprised to see baptism reduced to magic (right matter (water) + right words = sacrament).
But admittedly we Orthodox are a bit tighter on the baptism subject than most other churches.
Tuttle’s argument is that baptism is valid if:
1. Water is applied to the baptized
2. The Scriptural formula is recited
3. With seriousness of intent to follow a divine ordinance.
(Of course the latter is the point which has led the RCs to declare that Mormon baptism’s are invalid).
Tuttle’s change of view occurred when he was an “estimable” former Mormon lady, presented herself for confirmation. She “declined to be confirmed unless we recognized her baptism” because “she was unwilling to cast any stigma upon the religion of her parents”. Tuttle apparently asked for a month to consult with bishops and theologians and after so doing confirmed the lady.
Thus it looks to me that Bishop Tuttle’s motivations were missionary; that is, to make it more palatable for former Mormons to become Episcopalians. Tuttle viewed the LDS as holding grossly heretical views but presumably was persuaded to take a view of re-baptism of heretics similar to that of Pope Stephen in the third century.
Driver8
The problem is that Pope Stephen did not support a blanket policy of receiving heretics without baptism. He was reaffirming the canonical discipline of the Church laid down in the Canons (see Apostolic Canons 46, 47, and 50, Canons 8 and 19 of the 1st Ecum. Synod,Can on 7 of the 2nd Ecum. Synod, Canon 95 of the 6th Ecum. Synod, Canon 66 of the LocalSynod of Carthage, and Canons 1, 5, and 47 of St. Basil. Canon 7 of the Second OEcumenical Council (381)3 and Canon 95 of the Fifth-Sixth OEcumenical Council (691))
Generally speaking those canons affirm the possibility of various methods for receiving heretics into the Church including reception by Chrismation. But they are quite consistent in holding that Trinitarian heretics needed to be baptized. Also there was never any question of accepting pseudo-baptisms from polytheist pagans. Roman Catholics used to be much stricter when it came to discerning questions relating to the “validity” of baptisms. Sadly they have become quite lax in recent decades often accepting even those performed by religious sects that deny sacramental theology (i.e Baptists and most Evangelical Protestants).
The dispute between Pope Stephen and Bishop Cyprian occurred before all those canons were written. Broadly, I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I’m not supporting the judgment of Bishop Tuttle. I was just trying to explain why he might have been persuaded to change his views. He seems to view Mormons as anthropomorphite heretics.
Of course in his day polygamy was supported by the official teaching of the LDS and practiced particularly by leading Mormons. Of course Bishop Tuttle sees this as grievously sinful but I haven’t seen if he had any views on what to do if a polygamist (husband or wife) came forward for baptism. I wonder if his view might be that a polygamous marriage, if not the first marriage, simply wasn’t a valid marriage at all (bigamous etc. marriages not being valid).
Of course, around the early days of his bishopric, one or two people who came into conflict with the LDS were mysteriously murdered in Salt Lake City. That might have influenced his tactics.
Driver8
Polygamy is almost a side issue (were you confusing that with my reference to their polytheism?). Mormons believe in multiple gods and that some of them will become gods in their own right over their own planets.
No I was thinking about the contemporary suggestion that ethical teaching is, in principle, under-determined by the church’s credal affirmations. So, I was thinking out loud if Bishop Tuttle would have seen the LDS teaching concerning marriage as itself heretical.
driver8,
Great to see you posting here. I wish you’d do so more often, as your comments are almost uniformly illuminating, well-informed, and stimulating.
Your historical anecdote about +Tuttle’s waffling on Mormon baptism shows clearly that our problems with protecting orthodoxy and maintaining the Doctrine in the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Christ as historically received are not merely of recent origin, but go way back. There are many other examples that predate +Pike in the 1960s.
Living here in VA, I’m always mindful of how Thomas Jefferson was allowed to serve as a vestryman most of his adult life, even though as a Deist, he wasn’t a Trinitarian Christian. He illustrates the sad truth that you’ve never had to be a real christian to be an Episcopalian, or even an Episcopal leader. You just had to belong to the right social class…
David Handy+
Not that it matters but it doesn’t seem to have been the case with Bishop Tuttle. His brother was a blacksmith.