The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints has come under some viscous attacks as of late due to the candidacy of Mittens. It is really depressing, there are so many legitimate and tasty reasons to shudder at this man's popularity, attacking his religion is very. . . distasteful. From Charles I attacking Puritans (and not just the metaphorical, verbal attack) to Protestants in this country shamefully attacking JFK's Catholicism (one such comment: "Irish priests" would manipulate a Catholic president "as if he were their toy."), no good ever comes out of religious persecution. A lot of revisionist history comes out of the Evangelical movement and the GOP regarding the supposed piety of the Founding Fathers, and it is important to note that this is all bunk. They were all intellectual giants, and like most brilliant men they were perceptive enough to know that you don't have to accept the literal truth of scripture to appreciate that there is truth in the lessons scripture imparts. Ben Franklin once wrote "As to Jesus. . . I have doubts about his divinity." Good luck winning the Iowa caucus these days with that hanging in your background. Alexander Hamilton was wary of Christian zealotry as well: "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right." Religious freedom in our country was of paramount importance to the Fathers because they harbored such doubt. The Fathers were not part of the first wave of Puritan ideologues to cross the Atlantic. They were more pragmatic. They realized that no church of man, Christian or otherwise, held a monopoly on virtue - and they built the religious protections into our founding documents for this very reason.
It would be one thing if the rants concerning Mormonism were coming from some intellectual Ivory Tower condemning Mormons as a microcosm of all religion - ie Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins. But this stuff is coming from Evangelicals. Reverend Slim Fast, who supposedly is a leading Evangelical theologian, actually asked a reporter if Mormons really do believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. Which, technically I suppose they were - children of God and such - but doesn't that hold true for all branches of Christianity? Doesn't there have to be a close relationship between the two to contrast what the differences are between good and evil? The Economist recently published a nice overview of the history and theology of the Mormons - check it out here. No doubt the Mormons have some decidedly exotic theology buried in that Book of Mormon. But is any of it more exotic than "Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth; they were told not to harm the grass of the earth nor any green groweth or any tree, but only those of mankind who have not the seal of God upon their foreheads;" (Hey! Like a Jaffa!) "they were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torture was like that of a scorpion, when it stings a man." Revelations 9.3-5. Yeah, that ain't exotic.
The passage of time has allowed mainstream Christians to view the 2000 year old scripture as legend untouched by modern science, or modern newspapers - Joseph Smith did not have that advantage. I am not defending religion - I think it is all a little counter-productive - when I read about the infighting among these different sects of Christianity, I think about that Chris Rock riff - "Farakhan hates Jews, which I don't really get. I hate white people! I don't need to cut them all up into little categories." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the jist. However, religion is a powerful and important part of the lives of a great majority of Americans. As Lincoln said, we need to listen to "the better angels of our nature" when judging a man. Judge his words and actions, not the book in his nightstand.
"She has turned her face, more than once, to the Outer Radiance and simply seen nothing there. And so each time taken a little more of the Zero into herself. It comes down to courage, at worst an amount of self-deluding that's vanishingly small: he has to admire it, even if he can't accept her glassy wastes, her appeals to a day not of wrath but of final indifference. . . ." Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.
It would be one thing if the rants concerning Mormonism were coming from some intellectual Ivory Tower condemning Mormons as a microcosm of all religion - ie Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins. But this stuff is coming from Evangelicals. Reverend Slim Fast, who supposedly is a leading Evangelical theologian, actually asked a reporter if Mormons really do believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. Which, technically I suppose they were - children of God and such - but doesn't that hold true for all branches of Christianity? Doesn't there have to be a close relationship between the two to contrast what the differences are between good and evil? The Economist recently published a nice overview of the history and theology of the Mormons - check it out here. No doubt the Mormons have some decidedly exotic theology buried in that Book of Mormon. But is any of it more exotic than "Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth; they were told not to harm the grass of the earth nor any green groweth or any tree, but only those of mankind who have not the seal of God upon their foreheads;" (Hey! Like a Jaffa!) "they were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torture was like that of a scorpion, when it stings a man." Revelations 9.3-5. Yeah, that ain't exotic.
The passage of time has allowed mainstream Christians to view the 2000 year old scripture as legend untouched by modern science, or modern newspapers - Joseph Smith did not have that advantage. I am not defending religion - I think it is all a little counter-productive - when I read about the infighting among these different sects of Christianity, I think about that Chris Rock riff - "Farakhan hates Jews, which I don't really get. I hate white people! I don't need to cut them all up into little categories." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the jist. However, religion is a powerful and important part of the lives of a great majority of Americans. As Lincoln said, we need to listen to "the better angels of our nature" when judging a man. Judge his words and actions, not the book in his nightstand.
"She has turned her face, more than once, to the Outer Radiance and simply seen nothing there. And so each time taken a little more of the Zero into herself. It comes down to courage, at worst an amount of self-deluding that's vanishingly small: he has to admire it, even if he can't accept her glassy wastes, her appeals to a day not of wrath but of final indifference. . . ." Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.
5 comments:
It is important to note that the reason that we regular christians feel that way towards mormons is because they recognize another prophet - they believe the book of mormon to be canonical.
I think the point of the post is that ultimately it isn't important. Mormons and "regular christians," in the grand scheme of things, have much more in common than they have differences. But that doesn't really matter either. It shouldn't be important in the realm of presidential politics. It's a stupid thing to fight about.
The problem with all this logic is pretty simple. The Bible is an all-or-none thing. You cant pick and choose which parts you believe and which ones you don't. A true Christian won't equivocate.
Look, Mormons trying to say they are Christians is like someone saying, "I'm French. I've never been to France, but I flew on an Air France flight once, and I think the plane even flew over France while I was in it, and, oh yeah, I like French people, french fries and I like France, so therefore I must be French." This, obviously, can't work. We have to ask ourselves, what does the word "Christian" mean? What does the word "Mormon" mean? And are the two definitions close enough that a reasonable person would see an "equal nature"? See, it's all math really. Isn't that true with everything? If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Doesn't there have to be a standard definition for any of this to work?
"A Christian is an imitator of Christ in thought, word, and deed, as far as this is humanly possible, and he believes rightly and blamelessly in the Holy Trinity." --John Climacus (circa 600 AD)
To the extent that a Mormon can claim he or she meets this definition, to that extent they can call themselves Christians. But if they, however, cannot claim that they meet this definition, then they are simply....Mormons. And that will have to be enough.
I don't agree, Frank, but I am glad you are reading the site my friend. Your opinions are always impressively framed.
Post a Comment