Mormons contemplate the scrutiny and criticism they will face if Mitt Romney runs for President. When Romney ran for the Senate in 1994, he faced "almost daily to potshots that his religion was racist, then sexist, then backward, then clannish with designs on ruling the U.S. if not the world." Nowadays, the church is "more proactive":
[LDS President Gordon B.] Hinckley has also downplayed the more unusual elements of the faith. He has dismissed the pre-1978 ban on blacks becoming priests and the practice of polygamy, which ended officially in 1890, as "in the past." He has written inspirational books without using any Mormon language. He welcomed the world to Utah for the 2002 Winter Olympics.Aren't all religions mysterious if you look closely? Normally, in politics, we just hold religion at a distance. We expect the candidates to have some religion but refrain from talking much about how the religion's beliefs interweave with the candidate's political thinking. But there is a move that can be made against a candidate that drags religion into the campaign and tries to stir up prejudice:
All of these efforts may help Romney, who could hardly look more All-American. His answer to questions about underwear could be an ad he once ran that showed him bare-chested on a beach.
"If you listen to Mitt and [President Hinckley] long enough," says [journalist Ron] Scott, "you might conclude that Mormons are really just Episcopalians who wear funny underwear."
But some members are wary that in an effort to explain the LDS faith to a critical audience, officials may end up watering it down.
"Downplaying temple garments? What else do we want to demystify and de-weird for the sake of gains in popular opinion?" asks Steve Evans, a Seattle attorney who helps run the Mormon blog bycommonconsent.com. "I'm all in favor of clarifying misconceptions, but eventually I am worried that we lose something vital."
Romney got a taste of it in his 1994 attempt to unseat Edward Kennedy in the Senate.Of course, President Kennedy said what he said because he was the one who was being attacked. He doesn't deserve special credit for taking the high road. The high road was best for him, and he might have taken the low road if it was better. But it was the high road.
Despite his brother's famous speech saying that a person's religion should be off-limits, Kennedy "played the Mormon card so relentlessly and cynically that even the leader of Boston Catholics, Cardinal Bernard Law, indignantly wrote that the lessons John Kennedy taught the country about a man's religion have 'been lost on President Kennedy's youngest brother, but salvaged by Mister Romney,' ''
पोस्ट्स
३० टिप्पण्या:
"Of course, President Kennedy said what he said because he was the one who was being attacked. He doesn't deserve special credit for taking the high road. The high road was best for him, and he might have taken the low road if it was better. But it was the high road."
Maybe he doesn't deserve special credit, as he was the one being attacked, but by that logic, neither do Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr.. Sure, you can draw a distinction between politics and civil rights, but can you really?
Bishop Law was right to criticize Teddy; JFK does deserve credit (maybe not "special") for taking the high road over the low road, especially in light of the fact he was being attacked (how many politicians under similar stresses lash out, or demagogue?). Similarly, how Romney handles the political and media attention paid to his Mormonism is likely to prove more important than his being Mormon (in a worldly, secular sense, that is).
Romney might startle some by sharing some of that scrutiny with Sen. Harry Reid, just to test if voters and the media are really concerned about Mormonism, or about a Republican who is Mormon. Many seem absolutely untroubled by the incoming Sen. Majority Leader's Mormonism.
Re: "Aren't all religions mysterious if you look closely?"
At this point, I am tolerant of any religion that doesn't send grandma into a bus strapped with explsoives. I don't really care about Mormon underpants all that much, in comparison.
"But it was the high road."
As much as the Kennedy clan was often a ruthless political machine, there was no concerted effort to attack Nixon's Quaker religion. (See 1960 Time magazine article on the anti-Catholic tinge to the election here.)
Romney presents an interesting test of the Lieberman premise, namely the notion that religious voters will favor a person of faith, regardless of details of that faith.
Disclaimer: "Some of my best friends are Mormons."
I don't think there's any reason why membership in the LDS church should exclude someone from the presidency; in fact, extrapolating from the characters of the Mormons I know, I rather think it might be a good thing.
But I admit to being disturbed by the downplaying of the unique aspects of LDS beliefs and practices I've seen reported in the media. If you're a true believer, especially if you hope to win converts, why not be up front about your beliefs?
There's a TIME magazine interview with Mormon president Gordon B. Hinckley that bothers me, I think from 1997. He's asked if LDS doctrine is that God the Father was once a man, or not, and he essentially replies, "I don't know that that's what church teaching is." It's a weird answer, you'd think he'd say yes or no, or even "let me clarify that." It really makes me wonder if there's some kind of policy to be secretive about the beliefs that draw bright lines between LDS theology and that of most Christians.
If Romney runs, I'll be really, really interested to compare the news media "in-depth" reports about Mormon beliefs with what my LDS friends can tell me about them. Heaven knows the media often reports erroneously on the doctrine of my own church (RCC), so I sympathize.
I suspect a go-to-blog on this issue will be Get Religion, which is all about how the media covers religious issues. Highly recommended if you're wanting to watch this evolve.
Reason: In the episode “All About Mormons,” a Mormon family moves to South Park, and one of the boys finds out that they’re pretty nice. Then they have a fight, and at the end the Mormon boy teaches him a moral lesson: “Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice, and helping people, and even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.”
(From the Reason interview with Matt Stone and Trey Parker)
He has written inspirational books without using any Mormon language.
That's not surprising, because I'm a member of the LDS church and I've listened to dozens of talks by President Hinckley, and every one of them has been in English.
Freder, the three do share a lack of suicide bombers, hence my tolerance for their diversity.
I don't really give a damn about any religion, as long as they don't threaten to kill unbelievers.
Hence my concern with new MN Rep. Keith Ellison (or whatever his name is this week).
Every Christian sect believes that they possess the only true path to Heaven, and that all other Christians are heretics.
When I teach religion in 7th grade, I have a hard time convincing my students that Catholics are Christian.
When I tell them that Jesus was a Jew, that all of the apostles were Jews, and that originally only Jews could be Christians the fun really starts.
(By the way I also teach Islam, Daoism, Shinto, Buddhism and touch on Hinduism)
Rather than responding directly to most of Freder's accusations (which are clearly a matter of opinion; if you believe that Joseph Smith was called by God then you believe it, as I do; otherwise he would be right,) I am going to clarify one point:
Of course I believe that the LDS Church is true (otherwise why would I join a Church I didn't believe was true.) However, the Church does NOT believe that all Christians are 'damned to hell.' In fact, the only person in the history of the planet who we know for a fact has been so damned is Cain. There are others as well, but God only knows who they are and speculating on who they are is foolish. But I assure you, that as an ordinary Christian I don't believe that you will go there.
We believe that you are responsible for what you know. And we believe that because of additional scripture (the Book of Mormon) plus latter day revelation that we have more information than you do. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. It is good if we put that additional information to good use (starting with sharing it) but it is a bad thing if we don't-- then we stand condemned. Hence, if I went to the store and bought a bottle of wine and drank it then I would have committed a sin, but a Catholic who came in after me and bought exactly the same thing and consumed it has committed no sin because (s)he does not have the knowlege I have that it is a sin. On the other hand, if (s)he stole the wine then the condemnation would be the same as if I did it because we would both know that it is wrong to steal.
Freder said "Gee, I guess you've never heard of the IRA."
oooooh, SNAP!
Indeed, I have heard of them. Unlike the mullahs today, I don't think the Pope was pimping for the IRA murderers, and praying for more deaths to non-believers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Lotsa ugliness from religion to go around. Lotsa mayhem from atheists, too. So what? Humans have a tendency towards evil. Is that news, Freder? No. Interesting? No.
In 2006, Mormons have become a fairly benign force. Yes, there are remnant troglodytes in their midst. Whatever. And what does Srebrenica have to do with Romney? At present, the most violent religion is Islam. And the most violent non-theist religion is communism.
I'm not worried about Christians in the US. Seems like how we set up our religious tolerance (via the Founding Fathers) worked out pretty well. Russia, France, and the rest of the world haven't been so good at it, as the reference to Srebrenica points out.
As I already said, I don't really give a damn about any religion, as long as they don't threaten to kill unbelievers.
Of course religions are mysterious. That's what makes the good ones interesting. Otherwise it would be a lot easier to record Oprah and get the self-help advice in a way that doesn't require any sacrifice. Plus, a person could sleep in on Sunday mornings.
I don't get the playing down of mysteries, though I do think that a religion should also be asked to look deeply at itself to at least show its plausibility. Christianity has done this since at least F.C. Baur and has been made stronger for it.
Mysteries involve things we can't really know for certain. Did Jesus walk out of that tomb? History can't prove or disprove the fact. There's no footage, so we're left with witnesses who sure seemed to act like he did.
There's a lot we can know, and a lot we can't know, so we're left with weighing the evidence and making a leap. Wrestling with that evidence is good fun, and makes for a deeper faith.
No one should be afraid of it, and no one should get pissed off when others disagree with the evidence.
Yet, there is something to be said for analyzing a religion for its claims and assessing a person who would accept those claims. I wouldn't vote for someone who worships Zeus for instance, or considers the sun a god. In my mind that's silliness, and says much about the decision making ability of someone who would believe it.
I think the LDS church should be looked at. Newsweek should even turn its religious focus to something other than its managing editor's personal faith quest and look at the claims, as well as the other influential religions in this world.
As far as all Christian sects rejecting all others, I think the ECT movement puts it well. This connects to another reason why I'm all for scrutiny. Much of the time people make choices about a religion while being mostly ignorant about the actual practiced religion.
In fact, if you really want to know what members of the Church believe, you don't have to take it from me. In our scriptures is a two page document called the 'Articles of Faith' (just as much a part of scripture as anything else) which was penned by Joseph Smith himself in response to a question on what the basic beliefs of members of the Church are:
Here it is (link here)
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the dHoly Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
--Joseph Smith
Freder:
I have read 7 different versions of the Bible, each claims to be authoratative. I believe that none are the work of God.
I have been exposed to the story and word of Christ, and reject it as myth.
Am I going to Heaven or Hell?
By the way I am a Deist.
I am not an expert on the dogma of LDS--all I know is a couple friends of mine, whose lives were fractured and unhappy because of a nutty dysfunctional family of origin, became Mormoms once they got married and had kids of their own. They just needed direction on how to be a happy family. They and their husbands and kids are now doing great.
The Mormoms do "family" quite well. Other religions should take lessons from them.
Freder, whether or not the LDS Church considers other churches to be valid representatives of Christ on the Earth or not is unrelated to whether or not they feel that all that are not Mormons will be consigned to the stereotypical christian Hell.
According to Mormon theology in the afterlife all mankind will be judged and will receive awards related to our degree of faithfulness, etc. In rough form we will be assigned to three main degrees of reward, with the lowest being preferable to our current mortal state:
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1295-1,00.html
Oh, and Freder, don't forget that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Your recitation of past sins has nothing to do with the violence of Islam or Romney's candidacy, or are you honestly saying he's going to be shooting at SUV convoys of Christians from the Oval Office?
Freder:
As I said in my post, I believe that the LDS Church is true (if I thought another church was true then I would join that one). So yes, there was an apostacy prior to Joseph Smith coming. And I still believe (as I also posted) that other Churches don't have some of the knowlege that we have.
That does NOT equate to 'damned to hell.' Without going into a lot of deep discussion about the nature of the heavens (see II Cor. 12:2-- there is more than one), 'Hell' (or outer darkness) is probably not a place where either you or I will go. Let's leave it this way, my friend-- God's judgments are just and He will send no one anyplace they don't deserve to go.
As to the exclusivity of Christian sects:
1)Do Methodists believe that I must be "born again" in order to get to Heaven?
2) Do Calvinists believe I can earn my way into Heaven by faith and/or good works?
Those are just two examples off the top of my head.
Speaking of 'family,' this is a really good discussion, but I have to go so I can go over to my kids school and watch one of them doing a puppet show.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
And Mormons believe that just as fervently as anyone else.
Your religion is an offense to Christianity as it directly contradicts the central tenants of Christianity and presents a blasphemous, ahistorical, and ridiculous fantasy about Jesus (and other fictional characters) running around pre-Columbian America doing and saying things that never happened.
As a Mormon, it's amusing to me to hear about how strange my beliefs are from other Christians. Let's take a step back and look at one of the core beliefs that we share:
"Jesus Christ died and was resurrected three days later."
Is that something that happens everyday in your neck of the woods?
It seems to me that everyone should take a step back and look in the mirror before picking on us crazy Mormons.
Freder,
I'm a Christian. I believe Jesus is Lord. It seems clear to me that Mormonism was started by a whacko or conman. Also, I'm not terribly happy about the beliefs that other denominations have sometimes, but in the end it is all about Jesus, isn't it?
If Mormons believe, as the quotes I've see indicate, that Jesus is the Son of God and the Way, the Truth and the Life then maybe you should cut them some slack.
"3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." -- well, that covers that.
I used to be more upset with doctrinal differences than I am now, especially when it seemed the Bible was crystal clear on the issue at hand. But nowadays when sects are moving farther and farther from respecting Jesus as Savior then all that other stuff starts to pale in comparison.
One could argue that on such issues you should make your thoughts known, preferably without bile, but after that you've done any reasonable expectations regarding the Commission. Look, man. The Mormons ain't on your beat. That's God's job. In the end, His will be done.
If the stuff they say apart from Jesus is wrong, well then they're wrong. You have wrong doctrines too, so do I. We see through a glass darkly and no denomination/sect/religion has it 100% right, I guarantee. All you can do is love God and do your best and enjoy the gifts God has given you. Leave the smiting to Jesus.
The Mormon Church is insidious because it is so good at playing nice. Its missionaries are so clean-cut and its leaders are such pillars of the community that it appears to be just another Christian denomination. But it isn't.
So what you're saying is that what bothers you about the Mormon church is that we're too...Christian?
Sorry for not fitting into your stereotype about raving cultists. Since returning from my years spent as a Mormon missionary I've grown a goatee and generally only wear a suit and tie on Sundays. I suppose I could try to break some laws now and then, would that suffice or should I do more to differentiate myself? (I wouldn't want anyone to get confused and think I'm a Christian after all!) ;-)
"Mormonism is a false religion started by a false prophet."
It's hard to fathom all the hostility expressed in this thread to a church whose members seem to be disproportionately clean-living, hard-working, family-oriented and public-spirited. Unless you see these virtues as negatives (as Daily Kos readers might), why concern yourself over a few theological oddities? It was after all a mainstream Christian who admitted, "Credo quia absurdum."
There is another faith, far more numerous than the Mormon Church, that spreads and enforces its beliefs by rather more explosive methods. Anyone worried about false prophets ought to focus on the one whose followers actually pose a danger to the rest of us.
Not to put too fine a point to it, but Mormonism makes Christian dogma look like Newton's Principia.
Terminology police here.
"Apostate" has a very specific meaning. It means one who abandons a faith, or converts to another one. It does not refer to someone who never held that faith in the first place.
When Mormons speak of the alleged "Great Apostasy," therefore, they are referring to a specific generation of people who once upon a time supposedly abandoned the teachings that Jesus supposedly taught. Nobody who came after that could possibly have been an apostate, according to them.
The only "apostates" today, according to Mormons, are people who used to be Mormon and now are not. Meanwhile, the apostates today, according to Catholics, are people who used to be Catholic and now are not. The apostates today, according to Muslims, are those who used to be Muslim and now are not.
Therefore Mormons do not call the rest of the people who call themselves Christians "apostates." That term, used by Mormons, refers only to ex-Mormons.
sigh... apostasy, blasphemy, heresy... people are always getting these wrong.
First, the accusations that Mormons can be self-righteous and thin skinned are correct, as witnessed by several comments in this forum. Mormons do have a tendency to dismiss criticisms rather than counter them with logical argument. Many missionaries (myself included) found out that attempting to counter vitriol with logic was like throwing pearls before swine (not only was it a waste of pearls, it did the swine no good.)
Unfortunately, distinguishing between attack dogs and those who sincerely want a debate is not a Mormon strong suit; everyone tends to get lumped in with the attack dogs, especially when they make a good point.
Second, in the last twenty years, under the direction of their current Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, there has been a "mainstreaming" reformation of sorts. Certain things have been downplayed and others dismissed while the emphasis on Jesus Christ has been greatly increased.
This isn't at all unusual when examining historical religions; most have gone through periods of change and adaptation. The long term result is often schisms or even the Protestant revolution.
Third, the "apostate" issue is a little more murky than is suggested. It means more than simply not being a Mormon any longer (which is covered by the more general term, "inactive") but those who no longer believe Mormon doctrine. In other words, they are using the word by it's definition.
Where it does get confusing it that Mormon doctrine states that non-Mormon peoples are in state of apostacy or spiritual darkness. This isn't much different than what many, if not most, religions believe. (The core of evangelical Christianity is that they must bring the light of Christ to those living in ignorance.)
(I am, by definition, a Mormon apostate. However, I am not anti-Mormon and never will be. Like all religions, Mormonism has its flaws, but its influence is overall positive. Were I forced to choose a religion, I would still choose it [if for no other reason than its salvation doctrine makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than that of any other religion.] Having said that, I know Mormon doctrine and history very well and am willing to engage in honest debate with anyone on the subject.)
PS. One of the truly odd aspects of Mormonism is that its official dogma is more narrow than that commonly believed by its members. For example, its official stance on abortion is that its ultimately none of their business, though publically, they present a more conservative approach. However cliche it may sound, this is an attempt to hate the sin and love the sinner. (Accepting that abortion may be medically necessary or even a fundamental right doesn't mean you have to like it.)
Joe,
The LDS church isn't officially anti-abortion? What do you mean, don't they classify it as sin, or "not choosing the right," or whatever?
This is news to me. Can you clarify?
The LDS church isn't officially anti-abortion? What do you mean, don't they classify it as sin, or "not choosing the right," or whatever?
This is news to me. Can you clarify?
Here is the official LDS Church position:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html
The LDS church is against abortion, but recognizes very broad exceptions including that it is ultimately a private decision made between a woman, her husband, her doctor and the Lord.
Note that the statement from the above link is, again, more conservative than the official stance outlined in the LDS church's Handbook of Instruction.
The LDS church believes individual members have the right to receive inspiration from God concerning their own lives. LDS church founder Joseph Smith taught that members are to be taught correct principals and then govern themselves. In light of this, the church's official stance makes sense.
Where the Church runs into trouble is that it's run by human beings, some of whom are very conservative, others more liberal. Thus, if two women have abortions in two different parts of the country and/or world and the circumstances are identical, one could be excommunicated while the other being completely left alone.
(When in my twenties, I was once threatened with excommunication for turning down a request by my bishop--the local ecclesiastical authority--to be an assistant Boy Scout leader. Yet other bishops loathe Boy Scouts.
The LDS church has always struggled with the "govern themselves" stance. As with ANY bureaucracy, they all too often can't resist crossing the line into nit-picking. For example, years ago, President Hinckley denounced tatoos and women having more than one piercing. Not only was it silly, it usurped parental authority and alienated the very teenagers it should have been embracing.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा