11 comments

1. It’s certainly not a theatrical embellishment. A Jewish scholar came and taught Hebrew to Joseph Smith and others in the school of the prophets (including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, among other). Apparently Heber C. Kimball was the worst student– I can’t remember if the best was Orson Pratt of Joseph Smith or somebody else.
   At the point in Ohio where the movie is set, Joseph has just begun to learn the rudimentary aspects of Hebrew. By the time of his death, you see his use of the Hebrew language in sermons such as the King Follet Discourse. Joseph came to love learning languages. I don’t think he was ever an expert, but he was very curious about them. His favorite translation of the Bible was German– he thought that it’s rendering seemed to come closest to his own revelations (having just seen the movie “Luther” again, I took special note of that) . In the Doctrine and Covenants, he received a revelation that mentions languages, “And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages and tongues and people” (D&C 90: 15).

2. Mahonri, this is interesting. Thanks.

   I thought that only Baptists had a history of major brawls in business meetings. 🙂 But Work & Glory III really showcases a wild one among LDS, too.

   Yet I wouldn’t have responded like Brigham Young in the film. I would have desired to know the facts rather than say, “Don’t tell me.”

   And I just saw “Luther” again a couple of weeks ago.

   Would you side with Luther more than the Roman Catholic Church on the doctrinal issues presented in the movie?

3. Well, since Mormons generally think that the Reformation made the Restoration possible and that these great men were inspired by God– I generally side with Luther, yeah.
   On the issue of suicide, I think God does take in account mental states, etc. with suicide cases, so I think that that issue is complex and best left in the hands of God without our judgment.
   I certainly do not think that priests can sell salvation through indulgences, that’s for sure. Certainly siding with Luther on that one too.
   Relics, etc. seemed to be a pretty manipulative way to stoke the fire of faith so, again, I’m siding with Luther.
   I’m trying to remember what other doctrinal issues were brought up. I know from what I’ve heard in the past, there were some thing Luther taught that I didn’t believe, but I can’t remember what those were. What stood out to you?
   What the Catholics have in their favor, of course, was the authority they once had. I believe, as I’m sure you know, that they eventually lost that authority by corrupting the Church and its priesthood. But I do think that those were once very real things that they possessed. Did Luther have the authority do start his own Church– as a Mormon, I would say that he did not. However, i think he was a very inspired man whom God worked upon to do a great good in his generation and I fully expect to see him in the Kingdom of God.

4. Beyond thoughts on suicide, pilgrimages, relics, and money-racketing (which is different today in the Catholic landscape in some regions), two main issues stand out to me:

   1) Luther’s conviction in God’s justification of the sinner in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.

   2) Luther’s conscience captive to the authority of God’s Word over ecclesiastical authority.

5. 1) To the first point, I agree and disagree. It is through Christ and Christ only from whom mankind can obtain salvation, as you say. But that also means that obtaining His Grace is on His conditions and through the means he outlined in the scriptures– baptism, enduring, “doing” His will. The steps he outlines in the New Testament and which he explicitly states throughout.

   2) I would substitute his “word” to be the Holy Ghost instead of the scriptures, although the two work in conjunction, so that’s just quibbling over details anyway. :]

6. I greatly admire Martin Luther and his dedication to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he understood it. Evangelical enthusiasm for Martin Luther, however, raises an interesting conundrum.

   The conundrum actually relates to the first point brought up in comment # 4, Luther’s conviction in God’s justification of the sinner in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone. It is true that this was Luther’s opinion about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But Luther had a major problem with this doctrine. In order to maintain his teachings on grace alone/faith alone, Luther had to reject the Epistle of James. That is, Luther’s preference for the doctrine of Romans led him to dismiss the doctrine of James because James contradicted his preferred doctrine of grace alone. Rightly understood, James does not contradict Romans if Romans is read together with James, but this is not the approach that Martin Luther took.

   Specifically, Martin Luther felt that James 2:24 (actually James 2:14-24) was inconsistent with his own interpretation of Romans 3:28. For ease of reference, Luther believed that

   Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24)

   was inconsistent with

   Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)

   Because Luther preferred the teachings in Romans (presumably this was related to his specific interest in denouncing Catholic abuses relating to the creation of extra “works” that could help people obtain salvation), he dismissed and derided the Epistle of James as “an epistle full of straw” and did not consider it, together with the Biblical books of Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, to be scripture. Thus, in order to maintain what he wanted the Gospel of Jesus Christ to mean, he had to downplay other scriptures, particularly James. This should raise the question for Evangelicals as to whether a preference for one doctrine can justify ignoring and deploring another doctrine that, when read in conjunction with the preferred doctrine, actually clarifies the meaning of the first doctrine altogether.

7. Martin Luther on John 8:25

   “They desire to know who he [Jesus] is and not to regard what he says, while he desires them first to listen; then they will know who he is. The rule is: Listen and allow the Word to make the beginning; then the knowing will nicely follow. If, however, you do not listen, then you will never know anything. For it is decreed: God will not be seen, known, or comprehended except through his Word alone. Whatever, therefore, one undertakes for salvation apart from the Word is in vain. God will not respond to that. He will not have it. He will not tolerate any other way. Therefore, let his book, in which he speaks with you, be commended to you; for he did not cause it to be written for no purpose. He did not want us to let it lie there in neglect, as if he were speaking with mice under the bench or with flies on the pulpit. We are to read it, to think and speak about it, and to study it, certain that he himself (not an angel or creature) is speaking with us in it.”

   Mahonri, Luther has penned the cry of my heart. Would you agree with this?

8. John F., I had overlooked your comment in moderation.

   You have brought up a good point about Luther. Thanks. I think he as a fallible man completely missed the power of James’ message. Rather than spurn, he should have embraced the ‘epistle of straw’ as a choice friend.

   How am I justified before you, John? It is living the book of James all the way in front of you.

   May God in His grace help me to do this before my neighbors. If not, my religion is vain.

9. First tell me how you are using the term “justified”. That matters.

10. Again, I would like to convey my deep admiration for Luther. He sacrificed for the Gospel’s sake like very few have.
    And I totally agree, as Luther states, that the scriptures should not be neglected. He went to great lengths to get the Holy Word into the hands of common people, letting them discover the words of the Lord for themselves, not to be simply mediated by the clergy on their own terms. Joseph Smith said something to the effect that he could learn more in a single hour with the Bible in the woods than a month of Sundays through a minister. So, yes, Todd, I completely and utterly agree with the quotation from Luther you have provided (I appreciate and follow Paul and James both, by the way). That does not mean that I think it REPLACES the Holy Ghost. Scripture and Revelation work in conjunction, neither one displacing the other.

11. John,

    justified – “declared righteous”

    I am headed off to Red Cliff Bible Camp in Wyoming. Be back Saturday.

    Guys, I hope you have great day with your family.