Flame away.
Mitt Ping!
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 08/09/2007 5:16:04 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Let’s cherry-pick two columns for today’s post- “Yes, Romney Needs to Answer Questions” from the Philadelphia Inquirer, being reprinted in other regional papers today, and “Mitt’s Faith Isn’t an Issue: As Governor, He Didn’t Try to Convert Us” from yesterday’s Boston Herald. For two columns that reach exactly opposite conclusions, it’s remarkable how similar these two pieces are. The formula, copied from an infinite number of columns written before them, goes like this: Question- is Mitt Romney weird by association with Mormonism? Analysis: Look at all the weird stuff Mormons believe! (List Exhibits A through L, with appropriate phrasing to lend as much of a weird vibe as possible). Conclusion: Does it really matter, now that you’ve just dragged the sincere religious beliefs of six million Americans through the dirt?
Yes, but as long as these writers describe Mormon beliefs accurately, it’s all fair game, right? Not exactly. Imagine that someone described one of Jesus’s healings like this: “So he’s walking around preaching all his sayings to people and a blind guy asks him to make him better, so Jesus spits in some dirt and rubs it on the guy’s eyes and tells him the magic clay and spit will miraculously just cure the guy. And that’s what Christians believe.”
You have to admit this is a somewhat truthful retelling. And yet the language in which it is framed is irreverent, disrespectful, and completely misleading about the spirit of the event. The insistence of the above commentators on using terms like “magic rocks,” and “decoder glasses” distorts and demeans the events that Mormons take as sacred and miraculous. One also hears the term “magical underwear” thrown about quite frequently, another phrase that barely hides the user’s disdain behind a thin veil of patronizing secularist bemusement.
But setting aside the feelings of Mormons when they see their beliefs characterized so flippantly, this kind of usage is wrong because it’s misleading. If your thesis is that X is weird, it’s the easiest thing in the world to support your thesis if you get to choose how you describe X, no matter what X is. Anytime you throw around words like “magical,” or “breakaway theology” people will walk away with the impression that X is just wacky. And yet, Mormons don’t believe in magic. They believe, as most Christians do, that God possesses power that he sometimes uses in the affairs of men. When you allow the believer to select the phrasing, it really doesn’t come off quite so weird does it? The insistence on framing Mormon claims as mockingly as possible obscures the truth, and therefore should be condemned.
Another great example, from the Inquirer column, is the idea of Mormon scripture’s “insistence” that all other religions are “the church of the devil.” Hmm. Actually, there is no insistence on that point at all. In fact, the phrase “church of the devil” appears twice in all of Mormon scripture. Once in the Book of Mormon, which states that “there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the Church of the devil.” While the phrasing is strong, this statement is never again seen in Mormon scripture- hardly ‘insistent.’ Further, there’s no reason to believe it defines the Church of the Lamb of God as Mormonism and everything else as the Church of the devil. In fact, that reading is at odds with the other scripture that uses the phrase. The Mormon scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants advises missionaries to “contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.” It would be absurd to read this statement to mean that missionaries SHOULD contend with all churches, because all of them are the church of the devil.
But this is nuance and depth, elements not comfortable in the garish retellings of performers like those responsible for the above columns. The truth is that cast against modern society, all religious beliefs look strange. If you are put off by the wording of the scriptures I’ve linked here, please spend a few moments with Jeremiah or Isaiah, and you may at least broaden your discomfort beyond Mormonism. The LDS faith’s only crime is having had the gall to arise contemporaneously with the invention of the secular backdrop that now views it as so untenable. Whether or not you think that’s impressive or insanely quixotic is immaterial. What matters is that commentators on this faith ought to give it the courtesy of explaining in terms that would make its beliefs at least recognizable to its own adherents. If we’ve come to a point where that is impossible, the damage will not only be sustained by Mormons.
Flame away.
Mitt Ping!
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
What Christian object to is Mormons claiming to be Christian when they are not. They don’t want Jesus connected with a false religion. Christians would be be just as upset if Muslims claimed to be the authentic Christianity. Mormons don’t want to hear their beliefs aren’t Christian.
No, no, no...we control the world’s supply of green jello.
As best I can tell, flour and oats. My neighbors got a big shipment while they were gone and I had to haul it under cover. What do Mormons do with that stuff when they die?
“Well, the widow died and there’s 12,000 lbs of flour in her basement. The Jehovahs Witnesses say that Thursday is Armageddon. The Seventh Day Adventists say Saturday at the latest so we better get it moved”
You forgot to add that George Bush and Karl Rove control the world's weather.
Oh . . and that Hillary controls the world's supply of ice.
The article, however, deals with the notion that any religion, traditional Christianity included, can be made to look ridiculous given the tone and terminology used by the writer/commentator. The above author gives the example of Jesus and the blind man. Another example would be the oft used joke about Jesus being criticized for not being able to swim because he walked on water. While technically true, it completely misses and demeans the meaning and importance of what actually happened and shows a less than honorable intent on the part of the person making the criticism.
You have to admit the whole story of Mormonism sounds ridiculous, starting with the golden tablets buried in the hills of upstate NY and getting more and more funny from there.
And that's without getting into the less publicized beliefs about people getting their own planets to rule, and so forth.
LOL!
I don’t believe Mormons are Christians and I distrust any politician from Mass no matter what the party. But I’d rather have a Mormon in the White House than a socialist, a closet-muslim, a sissy-boy, a nut-case or an adulterer. If Mitt runs, he’ll get my vote. I frequent many Mormon web sites cause those folks are the masters of emergency preparedness, an obsession of mine.
Mormon theology is wacked but their members tend to be pretty straighforward theologically. Even the mission elders keep it between the lines.
Methodist theology is straighforward but their members tend to be wacked. I’m amazed at what comes out of people’s mouths at church. Even lay preachers.
A friend of mine is in a mainstream church and the pastor argues against Scripture constantly. It’s a strange world.
Hardly.
From a traditional Christian view point, yes. The Secularists are even worse. The point is, if criticism is to be valid and useful, it must be accurate regarding the subject it is critical of. Very little of the criticism leveled at the church, and by extension, Mitt Romney, is 100% accurate.
Sounds like Reganesque did.;)
And to be honest, the more I learn about Mormonism the more ridiculous it sounds. As a person of faith, I start with a positive view of others' faiths -- even the Religion of Peace. But I have never, ever read any description of Mormon history and belief that improved my opinion of it.
From an atheist or agnostic perspective, the Mormon beliefs do look ridiculous. However, it would be nice if the so-called Christians would take the time to objectively look at some of the stories in their religion and see how believable they sound.
I think it would be prudent to remember that Christians believe in an omnipotent God. There’s no such thing as “Even God couldn’t do that”.
___________________________________________________________
You are absurd.
The name of their church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”
If they follow Christ they are Christians. They use the same Holy Bible as other Christians. Just because they also believe in a prophet that had a gold tablet does not make them non-Christian. Most Christians believe in a prophet that had stone tablets with commandments on them written by the finger of God is that so weird? It is true they are not “traditional” Christians. They don’t believe in the succession of the original Church down through the ages from Peter to the present Pope, but that does not mean they are not Christians. IMO if you follow Christ you are Christian, you may not be a part of what is commonly called the Holy Catholic Church but that does not mean you are not Christian.
What about the 95% that is directly quoted from LDS scripture? And the info from former mormons' own personal experience?
Apologists like to tar everyone with the broad brush of "anti-mormon", "basher" and "liar", simply because they resent ANY questioning of LDS doctrine and practices.
The "accurate" part of mormon doctrine is strange enough in itself, especially pertinent beliefs that men may become as God, and the baptism of the dead, to raise questions from many Christians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.