Evangelicals v. Mormons

[SeattleUte]

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

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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

Great article. Thanks for the link. What I found fascinating was the husband/wife story. He's an anti-Mormon who runs an organization with anti-Mormon websites and travels nation-wide to protest at Mormon events. She's active LDS. She stopped taking him to church functions when he'd follow people into the bathroom to give his anti-Mormon stuff. He takes calls from reporters in his car so he won't piss her off. Hilarious. I'd like to hear more on them.

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.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Great article. Thanks for the link. What I found fascinating was the husband/wife story. He's an anti-Mormon who runs an organization with anti-Mormon websites and travels nation-wide to protest at Mormon events. She's active LDS. She stopped taking him to church functions when he'd follow people into the bathroom to give his anti-Mormon stuff. He takes calls from reporters in his car so he won't piss her off. Hilarious. I'd like to hear more on them.

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.

dum dum dum ... if it's beind deemphasized the church is doing a terrible job of it

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Great article. Thanks for the link. What I found fascinating was the husband/wife story. He's an anti-Mormon who runs an organization with anti-Mormon websites and travels nation-wide to protest at Mormon events. She's active LDS. She stopped taking him to church functions when he'd follow people into the bathroom to give his anti-Mormon stuff. He takes calls from reporters in his car so he won't piss her off. Hilarious. I'd like to hear more on them.

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.

The portion of the article I'm referring to is:

"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.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The portion of the article I'm referring to is:

"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.

OK, I get where you come from now.

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

OK, I get where you come from now.

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.

I think if you search this board you'll see the great MikeWaters agrees with me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think if you search this board you'll see the great MikeWaters agrees with me.

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

SU, your take is way more extreme than Mike's. And Mike is far in the minority in this view, IMHO.

I do agree there is a shift in the emphasis and focus on Jesus Christ.

I don't believe there is a deemphasis on JS/restoration. With all the anniversaries over the last ten years of the restoration of the church, and pioneers, and priesthood restoration, and JS birthday, JS has been a prominent focus--as much as ever, IMHO.

Now when you emphasize something or increase your attention on something, I suppose it's only natural that something else gets less of your attention. I wouldn't consider that deemphasizing to me.

Deemphasizing to me is GBH talking about whether God was once like man and we will be like God "we don't know much about it and we don't talk about it a lot". That's clear and obvious deemphasis. Deemphasis is prosecuting the hell out of polygamy.

From Elder Ucctdorf last month on what a testimony is

--God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children.
--Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
--Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
--The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
--President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day.

I hate when people use one data point to prove or disprove a trend, but I see this as one of hundreds of data points to show that JS is not being deemphasized whatsoever.

Also, I strongly disagree with you Mike on the trend to focus on Christ being bad. I see it as the church evolving/repenting/getting closer to God's will. I think we were hung up on how we were different so much that it caused us focus on the wrong things.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Also, I strongly disagree with you Mike on the trend to focus on Christ being bad. I see it as the church evolving/repenting/getting closer to God's will. I think we were hung up on how we were different so much that it caused us focus on the wrong things.

I agree in principle that focusing on Christ is good. But we have a message. And that message is the restoration of Christ's church. And the way people will believe that is the case, is if they believe that the true gospel was restored via JS. Hence, if we lose that focus, we lose our reason for being. The raison d'etre of the church.