I used to be insulted that many Mormons believe that they who were born to comfortable and secure home situations with good parenting were being rewarded because they had been so "good" in the pre-existence, while people like me who were spawned to abuse and misfortune hadn't pleased God so much. (Nobody ever says this point-blank, but I picked up on it. An old LDS book I once had quoted Orson Hyde as teaching this kind of philosophy).

Now that I'm out of Mormonism, I often listen to broadcasts/podcasts from different preachers to see what they have to offer with belief systems. To my surprise, I have found that many Calvinists are anxious to attract Mormons into their churches! But should I be surprised? Although Calvinists don't teach Pre-existence, they do believe that God only loves a small number of all of humanity, who are pre-destined to be with him in bliss for all eternity, while the Unelect fry. Now Mormons are more mericiful by sending the unchosen to inferior heavens, but the principle is similar. Calvinists believe that God often blesses his elect with prosperity, so wealth tends to be a sign that a person is one of the chosen. Don't Mormons have a similar attitude towards the prosperous LDS?

Joe Smith ripped a lot of ideas from Calvinism. Providing a landing pad for disaffected Mormons would be a really smart move, though.

Almost six months ago, as a result of me researching Calvinism (to understand some things I did not yet understand about South Africa), I made this same connection!!!

In a number of important ways, the Calvinist theological and social "perspective" is AMAZINGLY similar to the Mormon perspective.

Great catch, bridgidbarnes!

EDITED TO ADD: I don't think that Calvinists are trying to "attract Mormons" (worldwide, I don't think Calvinists CARE about Mormons, or in many cases, even know they exist), but rather (my hypothesis) that JSmith was cribbing from the Calvinists just the same as he was cribbing from the ancient Egyptians and the Jews. Calvinism (in its many and various forms), to him I think, was just an existing and available resource to be mined for "gold."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2017 10:20PM by Tevai.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EDITED TO ADD: I don't think that Calvinists are
> trying to "attract Mormons" (worldwide, I don't
> think Calvinists CARE about Mormons, or in many
> cases, even know they exist), but rather (my
> hypothesis) that JSmith was cribbing from the
> Calvinists just the same as he was cribbing from
> the ancient Egyptians and the Jews. Calvinism (in
> its many and various forms), to him I think, was
> just an existing and available resource to be
> mined for "gold."

Exactly! I wouldn't assume that just because there are similarities in their theologies that Calvinists are actively pursuing Mormons. After all, calvinisism was around long before Joseph's Myth was invented.

Calvinism is OK, but I'm more a Hobbsian.


:-)

I see what you did there!

Nice!

Yes, it IS nice, Chicken N. Backpacks!

:D

+1. I love Calvin and Hobbes!

The Calvinist "Black Socks" Dutch here are in the news for their non vaccination stance and their communities suffering a whooping cough epidemic now and previous measles outbreaks.

One of the Calvinists is Jeff Durbin. He hangs out at the Mesa, Arizona temple trying to catch Mormons and teach them what the Bible REALLY says. They don't know at first that he's Calvinist. Maybe Calvin was Milk before Meat oriented too?

Joseph Smith ripped theology off from a lot of people. Like Swedenborg and Alexander Campbell. It's shouldn't have surprised me that he also ripped from Calvin.

and was immersed in the theology, and around the members enough that I can tell you that the religion has a deep distain for Mormonism.

Where the two are alike, though, is in their anti LGBT stance.

I wish I could understand what the attraction to Calvinism is for today's preachers. To me it is the most horrific Christian theology ever. I was freaked out when I learned about TULIP.

They do have a few similarities concerning the Elect.

brigidbarnes,

You said, "Calvinists believe that God often blesses his elect with prosperity, so wealth tends to be a sign that a person is one of the chosen." That is absolutely and completely inconsistent with Reformed Theology (Calvinism). In fact, the pursuit of earthly wealth and prosperity is 100 percent contrary to the Reformed teaching of pursuing Christ as your treasure. Your statement is utterly false.

Frank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brigidbarnes,
>
> You said, "Calvinists believe that God often
> blesses his elect with prosperity, so wealth tends
> to be a sign that a person is one of the chosen."
> That is absolutely and completely inconsistent
> with Reformed Theology (Calvinism). In fact, the
> pursuit of earthly wealth and prosperity is 100
> percent contrary to the Reformed teaching of
> pursuing Christ as your treasure. Your statement
> is utterly false.

I am not a Christian, and my knowledge of Calvinism is largely limited to a Cotton Mather sermon I read in 11th-grade American Lit, the Calvinistic knowledge that comes from being an American living in a once historically-Calvinist country, and several YouTube lectures and multiple book references when I was researching Calvinism vis-à-vis South Africa a few months ago, but my understanding of all of this is that Calvinism has historically been of the opinion that "status" (white race vs. other races, economic wealth, being born into a "good" family, socio-economic status as well as socio-economic privilege) is an outer, everyday indicator of who God selected to be His elect prior to their births.

Dark skin, lesser economic status, being born into less than stellar legal status (slavery, indenturehood, etc.) were all indicators of "lesser" worthy human beings who had been pre-selected, by God, for adverse destinations after their deaths.

In the last three hundred years or so in the United States, Calvinism has evolved along with all other sectors of American life, but those evolvements, as they appear today (in the twenty-first century) do not negate the historical facts that Calvinism, despite today's far sunnier and more progressive stance(s), was based upon and evolved from theological underpinnings that worked to conserve then-existing racial, ethnic, legal, and socio-economic privilege not only in Europe and in North America, but in (at minimum) southern Africa as well, for (at this point) four centuries.

I am very glad that your denomination of Calvinism has moved on from what was, for a VERY long time and for millions of people, a far darker (spiritually and sociologically) place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2017 01:29PM by Tevai.

Tevai,

I don't know the Cotton Mather sermon to which you refer. Nor the "several youtube lectures" and "multiple book references" you claim as evidence (but did not actually cite). If you want to provide some sources that I may check that would be great. But apart from that, your "understanding of all of this" is not evidence. Calvinism has been mischaracterized and misunderstood for centuries. Without any sources to back your argument I can only assume you are also misunderstanding or being taught a mischaracterization. But it has never been a standard doctrine of Reformed Theology that race or socio-economic status is an indicator of God's favor — i.e. who is elect and who is not.

In fact, the Reformed Theology view of mankind's election is rooted in Revelation Chapter 5:9-10... "And they sang a new song saying, 'Worthy are You (meaning Jesus Christ) to take the book, and to break its seals; for you were slain, and did purchase for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And You have made them to be a kingdom of priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

This applies to every ethnicity on earth. That is why William Carey (a staunch Calvinist) left England in the late 1700s to go to India to preach the Gospel to people who were not white and were not rich. He understood (and Calvinism teaches) that God is saving a people from all people groups. Carey's efforts earned him the nickname, "The father of modern missions." That does not at all correspond to what you and brigidbarnes have said about Calvinism.

I think Tevai may be referring to Johnathan Ed' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"

Sorry, Johnathan Edwards

They're trying to attract Mormons for the same reasons Mormons try to attract Calvinists (and everyone else).

Exactly. It's like the Ver!zon guy switching to Spr!nt and then trying to shift the customer base.

You'll like our bag o' beliefs better!

I too was first taught about Calvinism by my High School English teacher. Plus different books I have read over the years have given the strong impression that Calvinism teaches that prosperity and thriving is one of the signs that God is probably favoring one. Not all of the wealthy are saved, and not all of the poor are sent to fry. But prosperous Calvinists tend to feel pretty good about themselves, while poor Calvinists have more fears about being tortured for all of eternity.

I don't believe that all Calvinists think the same, and I'm sure that different time periods have had adaptations according to the experiences of their times. But as a general rule, the prosperous have always felt better about what was going to happen to them after death.

The concept of Predestination, no matter how explained, has always made me sick to my stomach.

They feel sorry for them?

brigidbarnes,

I suspect your high school English teacher was not a Calvinist but was, instead, teaching you canned information ABOUT Calvinism. If that is the case, what you learned from your teacher is almost certainly a caricature of Calvinism and in no way accurate. My daughter was similarly taught about Calvinism from an English text book in school. Everything she was taught was just plain wrong. So much so that I visited the teacher to correct the errors. They were teaching lies.

Likewise, I suspect the books you've read ABOUT Calvinism are written by people who either openly oppose the Doctrines of Grace (i.e. Calvinism) or just don't understand it. That is certainly true if you came away with the impression that Calvinism teaches that prosperity is a sign that God favors you. The, so called, "Prosperity Gospel" is diametrically opposed to the ACTUAL teachings in Calvinism.

If you want to know how Calvinists regard that kind of teaching I recommend you check out John Piper or John MacArthur, two prominent and current pastors who subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace.

John Piper can be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRue4nwJaA

John MacArthur here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDuDN2FtrIo

Better yet, read some primary source material of Calvinist teaching. Some authors who would be helpful are: Charles Haddon Spurgeon, R.C Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur. Read about Calvinism from people who hold to that view. That will insure you get a fair presentation of the beliefs and not the skewed perspective of someone who opposes it.

What you will find is that the Doctrines of Grace are ALL about the work of Jesus Christ and how HE (not worldly wealth) is our treasure.

Not Ids,

I don't think Tevai could be referencing Jonathan Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." I've read it multiple times and it does not espouse anything even remotely resembling the idea that race and wealth are signs of God's favor.

Any religion would be happy to have tithe paying Mormons who believe they must dedicate themselves to Heavenly Father to secure a place in the here-after. Churches need new blood, and more money.Always. No money, no church.
It's always about the bottom line -- money!

Christian pastors no more would like to see converts to Biblical Christianity from Mormonism moreso than any other belief system. When you hear a sermon on Mormonism or see Christians reaching out to Mormons it is due to a Biblical command that compels them to correct error when they see it.

an organized religion but as the entire body of believers in Christ.

Church attendance, while encouraged, is not compulsory.

I apologize: It WAS a Jonathan Edwards sermon ("Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God") that I read in 11th-grade American Lit, but at the same time, the mental "picture" still in my brain IS a portrait of Cotton Mather. (I have a sort of semi-eidetic memory, and the two men are quite physically dissimilar from each other.) I assume that there was a portrait of Cotton Mather in my American Lit textbook, next to something he wrote, which was either directly before, or (more likely) directly after, the Edwards' sermon (which had no portrait), and my brain conflated the two. I am sorry for my mistake.

There are two things I retain from that American Lit class:

1) Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, "Self-Reliance," which instantly, as I read it in class, became a fundamental turning point in my life (it changed me forever and fundamentally from that moment on), and:

2) "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

The reason why this sermon was so memorable to me is that Mrs. Cline (our American Lit teacher) pointed out, after we had read the sermon and had (fairly vigorously) discussed it for awhile, that--aside from all other perspectives--what this sermon REALLY was, in its Puritan time and place, was THEATRE. This sermon was ENTERTAINMENT, in a culture where entertainment as WE knew it was both non-existent as well as forbidden.

She was talking to a class of about thirty students, every single one of whom had a DIRECT connection to the entertainment industry. (We had fellow students in our classes and in our school who were child performers, some of us had our own personal experiences in the industry, our parents and relatives and close neighbors were frequently employed in various aspects and capacities in the industry, and some of us would go on (as adults) to full adult careers in the industry.)

The word "theatre" got our attention because, at that moment, Mrs. Cline created the kind of intellectual/emotional disconnect that abruptly changes an individual's habitual mode of thinking. Suddenly, we were not so much discussing an old sermon from distant colonial times, as we were realizing, for the first time, that the concept of "entertainment" is bigger and more comprehensive than that which is done with stages and lights and film (or TV cameras).

For those of us (I don't think I was alone in this) who "were," in some way, "in the industry" or headed there, this was a pivotal moment, and a stunning realization:

A church sermon could be ENTERTAINMENT.

"Entertainment" could APPEAR to be something entirely different, and STILL be "entertainment."

For eleventh-graders, that was a stunning realization.

I never forgot that class.

I am sure I am not the only person in that class who never forgot it, either. (I know what happened to some of my fellow classmates in that class.)

Now, switch the gears a few decades:

As an adult, I have always been bewildered by how the Dutch people (who were, for a period of time, the largely most likeable and absolutely the coolest of Europeans, by European standards at that time) could begin a colony at the southern tip of the African continent (in 1652), and then morph into Afrikaaners. (In other words: they DEvolved.)

"Everyone" said that the answer was Calvinism, and I really did not understand, mostly because I did not know anything about Calvinism (other than what I knew through Afrikaaner Calvinism, which wasn't much). So I set out to learn enough about Calvinism to explain to myself how good Dutch people then devolved into Afrikaaners. My interests were not so much (actually: hardly at all) what the specifics of Calvisim are or were, but rather why and how this belief system could change a people so much through four hundred years that they became what (much of) the Afrikaaners became through those four hundred years, and into the ending years of the twentieth century (and for at least some of them, right into today).

I sort of (imperfectly) understand now. A great deal of the Afrikaaner devolution was due to their absolutely literal "understanding(s)" of the Old Testament, and (given their cultural disconnection from the rest of the world) their ferocious blindness to the fact that their extremely mistaken beliefs about the Old Testament were NOT intended by God as a blueprint they should use in the creation of what became Afrikaaner culture in South Africa (which crept over the larger southern Africa area in general, at least in part).

My interest in Calvinism is restricted to the part that Calvinism played in transforming the historical Dutch character into what became the Afrikaaner character in South Africa.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2017 08:17PM by Tevai.

I remember reading "The Covenant" by James Michener. Michener was a great researcher and one of the most accurate of Novelists. I remember him describing the development of the Afrikaans. They became the opposite of what the Dutch have always been known for. Their attitude towards Black people does remind me of Mormonism before 1978. Their interpretations of Old Testament symbolism were pretty terrible. Why did they not prefer the New Testament? Their version of Calvinsim was even worse than that of New England Puritans. I would love to read that book again someday.

I always hated those teachings about the pre-existence stuff. I always envied those born without any religion as if they were the chosen ones, they were the lucky ones in my eyes they got to live normal lives.

Calvinists need Mormons to lighten up their meetings a bit with their fun and laughter.

I found this thread interesting and looked at some of the links. After about 10 minutes I realized I was reading about Santa Claus vs the Easter Bunny.