![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
![]() |
![]()
The linked article from The New Republic is a sympathetic treatment of Mormons (not the norm for a rag that recently had one of its star writers referring to the "fraudulence and nonsence of Mormonism"). Specifically, the article focuses on Evangelicals' hatred for Mormons, explains the roots of it, and ties it to Romney's chances to win the Republican nomination. There's not too much new or insightful here except for the observation that Evangelicals really actually fear Mormons, because they see Mormons as deceptively similar to them. The article toward the end explains how many observers see Mormonism as increasingly deephasizing Joseph Smith, the First Vision, The Book of Mormon, etc., and ironically this has only hightened Evangelicals' fear and loathing (rather than making them conclude that perhaps they are winning the ideological battle by subtle and insidious means not unlike the West conquered Communism).
The funny part for me is Evangelicals' world view that the struggle for world domination is drawn between Mormons and Evangelicals. The narrowness and parochial nature of their world view is complete. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=f4KJ...AOEWKemQ%3D%3D
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
![]() |
![]() Quote:
I read the whole article and missed the part about Mormons deemphasizing Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I think that's your invention SU. You've been beating that drum a while now. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
![]() |
![]() Quote:
"The current prophet and president of the LDS Church, Gordon Hinckley, has made high-profile statements that seem to downplay the radical elements of Mormon theology. 'It is in part a p.r. campaign,' says Catholic theologian Richard John Neuhaus. 'But there are also serious Mormon thinkers who are engaged in a long-term theological project aimed at something like a rapprochement between LDS doctrine and the mainstream of the Christian tradition.' "Some hopeful evangelical scholars think that, within a few generations, Mormons will shed their radical doctrines for mainstream Protestantism and Mormonism will have more meaning as a cultural identity than as a distinct religion." "Radical doctrines" refer to things like Mormonsim is the only true church, Angel Moroni, golden plates, etc. The thrust of the article is that Evangelicals deplore that stuff, calling it micky mouse, etc. Among the "serious Mormon thinkers" refered to in the above quotation is obviously Bushman. I thought his quotes in the article were pretty disingenous. It most emphatically isn't true that Mormons don't get caught up in or don't much care about whether emperical facts support or contradict Joseph's claims, and it's all about faith. That's not been true through most of the Church's history. It's the increasingly recurrent fall back position among Mormons, particularly educated Mormons. The article also notes Evangelicals' inconsistency in attacking Mormonism on empirical/scientific grounds, and then turning around and taking a literalist belief in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and ignoring issues such as the New Testament's chain of custody, etc. As American-born sects these religions instinctively recognize the importance of empiricism in their value systems. But they only selectively apply it, and less and less, with increasing emphasis on faith. Overall, I thought the article was pretty boring. Not the kind of thing that prompted me to subscribe to this rag.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 11-15-2006 at 11:00 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
![]() |
![]() Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
![]() |
![]()
Here the article explains the crux of Evangelists' fear and loathing of the audacity of Mormonism's claims about its origins and "continuing revelation":
"But, while conservative Calvinists adopted the language of science to defend biblical inerrancy, they shrank from a second challenge: that of the German historical critics, who marshaled the latest historical and literary research to challenge the authority of the Bible. Conservative theologians crouched behind the creed of sola scriptura--'by scripture alone'--the mantra of the Protestant Reformation. They eschewed history and theological tradition, focusing only on biblical text. The combined effect of these two developments was to produce an evangelical Christianity obsessed with logic and scientific proof--but only when such evidence confirmed a literal reading of the Bible."
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 11-15-2006 at 11:19 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
![]() |
![]() Quote:
You read "downplay the radical elements of Mormon theology" and you translate that to "deemphasizing Joseph Smith, the First Vision, The Book of Mormon, etc". Sorry that's not what it means. The GBH reference is an obvious reference to when GBH said about the doctrine of God once being a man and man can become like God when he said something like "we don't talk about it and we don't know much about it". Radical Mormon theology is man can become like God and polygamy and other obscure doctrinal teachings of JS and BY that you don't hear about today unless Fusnik is speaking. Yes, this is definitely being deemphasized. Radical Mormon theology is not Joseph Smith, the First Vision, and the BOM. And these most definitely are not being deemphasized. That's just your wishful thinking. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
![]() |
![]() Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
![]() |
![]()
He agrees JS is being deemphasized, not that JS is radical doctrine. I agree there is a slight shift away from JS, but don't agree it is radical doctrine.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
![]() |
![]()
Yes I do believe there has been a shift from restoration-focus to Christ-centered-focus. Some of this has come from the top. "I worry that there are sacrament meetings where the Savior is never talked about." (paraphrased). "Another testament of Christ". Change in the logo. GBH's media interviews that focus on commonalities instead of the restoration.
Whether this is a subtle shift or a moderately major shift, it is hard to say. Time will tell. But I think it is safe to say that the language used in sacrament meetings about Joseph Smith is not the same in substance or quantity today. I am not alone in these observations. "Friend" agrees also, and he's not nearly the so-called liberal I am. I personally worry about this shift. I worry that the line that separates us from the rest of Christianity has faded, if only slightly. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|