Sunday, October 5, 2008


Ducking into a bookstore out of the sunshine at a festival yesterday, I found a wonderful old book by the late Hilaire Belloc, entitled "The Great Heresies."

Published in 1938, it remains astonishly relevant to our time, as Belloc virtually prophesies that the Islamic world, hardly a concern to the West in those days, might very well become an issue again; and that the great Protestant movement, though then dying, might see a rebirth as well -- which is to some degree beginning to happen as fervent Christians from Europe's former colonies now seek to convert the urbane and materialistic great grandchildren of the missionaries who once brought them their faith.

The first great heresy that Belloc examines, is Arianism.

That is intriguing because Mormons are sometimes accused of being modern Arians.

The Arian ideas were that Jesus was not God but man and that Jesus was a created being.

Although I am still studying out these concepts and am certainly no philosophic expert, I know that Mormons absolutely believe that Jesus is God -- in fact, we proclaim that He was Jehovah of the Old Testament. And though we may believe that the Father created His spirit body as well as His physical body (the latter being a point obviously accepted by "mainstream" Christianity, we also say that He has always been, that something of His nature is Uncreate.

So we are not Arians.

In fact, the whole Catholic vs. Arian quarrel comes about precisely because Catholicism inherited from the chaos of the Great Apostasy the apostate rejection of the igospel principle that God and man are the same species, even though such a doctrine is very much at home in the New Testament.

We mortals are simply at a much earlier stage in our development than our Father and the Savior are, and we are flawed and imperfect, though commanded by Him to become perfect. We are only different in the sense that a baby is different from its earthly Father, not in the sense that a worm is different than an orchid -- and also that Christ passed through His mortality without ever yielding to sin. Presumably, the Father did so as well.

Were that to have been understood and believed, the whole argument underpinning the Catholic vs. Arian debate would have been moot.

Back to Belloc: He makes another great point: the religious beliefs of a people shape their entire societal outlook. This is why he states that the study of heresy remains so important: a Protestant-based society will of necessity always be very different from a Catholic-based or a Muslim society.

When a heresy takes control, it changes the outlook of a society. Arianism, he said, appealed to those in the Roman world who wanted to see Catholicism weakened, who feared or resented Catholicism's cohesive structure and the social revolution that it was bringing about. It also appealed to those who considered themselves socially superior to the great masses of persons in the Empire. Thus its adherents were many of the nobility as well as virtually the entire army.

I hope that I have not mangled Belloc's conclusions too badly. I may come back and refine this rather hasty post.

Based on his theory, a Christian world in which Arianism had triumphed rather than Catholic Christianity, would have been an entirely different society.

That brings to my Mormon mind the story of the Zoramites, from the Book of Mormon. They were not godless folk. They were heretics -- devout elitists who overtly denied the divinity of Christ. Very much in the Arian spirit -- and the kind of society that they created in their sphere of influence seems to be exactly what Belloc suggested that Old World Christianity would have become had Arianism triumphed there.

My last thought: it would be interesting to study the kind of society that develops from a Mormon worldview, whether one believes as Belloc no doubt did that Mormonism is a heresy, or whether one accepts the claims of the Church that it is the restoration of the original Christian Church.

How do our distinctive beliefs affect our outlook?

Can such a study, however, even be made with a Church that is so aggressively a proselyter amongst other Christians? In other words, with so much of our membership becoming composed of people who were born and raised in another Christian tradition, with another outlook, would such a study be impossible to scientifically carry out? Would it have to be limited only to some small, isolated Utah hamlets?


Jon Sonoda said...

Not to rain in on your parade, but the contention with arianism was that they did not believe that Jesus was the same as the Father and Holy Spirit. As the Nicene council ruled "homoousis" or "same substance" not "homoiousis" or "like stuff" which would be the term if they were not the same being. John 1:1-2 sets up the logical syllogism perfectly, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

Check any version, that's how that reads. The Mormon bible adds "a" in front of the second "God" where there is none in the Greek. In case you don't understand, the "Word" is the same as "Jesus Christ" therefore, Jesus = God, but, it isn't followed with "and God = Jesus." Therefore, its safe to assume that Jesus was one with God but all of God was not Jesus.

Fundamentally, both assert that Jesus was not the same as God, but like God.

I figured that you didn't quite understand that from your Arian readings. :D

Clifford said...

Mr. Sonoda:

Beginning with the premise of "raining on my parade" and talk of the "Mormon bible" (by which I suppose you mean the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible), is not a scholarly way to have a serious discussion.

Let us try to be respectful, just as I would not refer to the Vatican as the papal pad.

If that is agreed upon, we can certainly discuss the two philosophical "h's" that wracked and divided the best minds of the Early Christian Church, as well as the justification or lack thereof for the article "a" in English translations of Greek Biblical writings.