« The NIE and the Election | Main | Meritocracy vs. Democracy »

Mormonism And Its Enemies

04 Dec 2007 10:31 am

In a month-old column on Romney's Latter-Day dilemma, E.J. Dionne put his finger on one under-discussed reason for evangelical hostility toward Mormonism:

Mormons now face criticism as a non-Christian "cult" from some wings of Protestantism. The hostility is aggravated by intense competition between Mormonism and evangelical Protestantism for converts.

It's this factor - that Mormon wards and evangelical churches, despite their vast theological differences, tend to offer a similar sociological appeal to religious seekers, and thus are in direct competition for converts - that undergirds the emails that Jonah's been getting from Christians explaning why they wouldn't vote for a Latter-Day Saint. It isn't about politics; it's about souls. As one of his emailers puts it:

I will not vote for a Mormon because they claim to be Christian, when they are not Christians. Electing, or even nominating, a Mormon continues to send the message to Americans that Mormons are fine and dandy, Christians like everyone else. Thousands of Christians are converted to Mormonism each year, and it is done under false pretenses. From what I have read, Mormons are very good at appearing to be orthodox Christians with new recruits. It's only later that the blatantly non-orthodox views come out. So, I rule out voting for a Mormon not because of actual policies they might pursue, but because of the message their election would send to Americans.

This may be fallacious reasoning: JFK's election, for instance, didn't exactly kick off an era of ever-increasing influence for Roman Catholicism, and you could argue that there's no better way to weaken a faith's appeal to converts than to welcome it into the bland and uncontroversial American mainstream. I don't, however, think that it counts as bigotry. And at the very least, it suggests that Ed Kilgore has it exactly wrong when he writes:

If I were Romney, I'd go right at the conservative evangelical Protestant suspicions about Mormonism by stressing and restressing its culturally conservative teachings and practices, ignoring the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith and formal theological issues altogether. Theology aside, Mormons could be perceived as evangelicals with a much better track record of worldly accomplishments and moral fidelity. And in many respects, the LDS church has built the sort of conservative commonwealth in Utah that many evangelicals dream of for the whole country. I happen to have a family member, a longtime Southern Baptist Deacon, who's travelled to almost every corner of the world. The only place I ever heard him wax rhapsodic about was Salt Lake City. "It's so clean!" he kept saying, reflecting a tanglble envy for what Mormons have wrought in comparison to the messy and hypocritical cultural milieus in which most evangelicals live.

The problem is that it's only a short leap from this "tangible envy" to the "tangible fear" that Jonah's emailers seem to feel - and to the extent that evangelical Protestants see Mormons as their major competitor for the lost sheep of the American religious landscape, I don't think suggesting that the Latter-Day Saints have "a much better track record of worldly accomplishments and moral fidelity" than they do is the way to win their votes.

Comments (41)

Somebody writes, "Theology aside, Mormons could be perceived as evangelicals with a much better track record of worldly accomplishments..."

This is somewhat ridiculous. Worldly accomplishments? The evangelical tradition is to be be credited with many great things: the founding of America, an amazing literary tradition, the abolition of the slave trade in England and the US, the revolution of religious freedom, and the list goes on. All these events in modern Western history importantly come out of the evangelical tradition. Comparing that with Mormonism is risible. NB: I am not an evangelical.

I suppose the writer meant his comment to be about contemporary matters...?

I do think you are correct in pointing out that it is about souls to many evangelical Christians, but I don't think that is necessarily not to be associated with bigotry.

I don't claim to know what most evangelicals think about the matter, but I do have a vivid memory of browsing in a evangelical Christian bookstore years ago and being struck by the variety of anti-Mormon books--books that seemed to portray it as a sinister cult. (Much more than any other religion, in fact, which I think speaks to you thesis of the competition for souls.) The cover of one, showing an illustration of two clean-cut Mormon missionary men, in their white shirts and ties, with sinister-looking shadows obscuring their faces, has stuck with me ever since I saw it years and years ago. It was a subtle but effective image!

Again, whether this sentiment will affect the election is not something I feel competent to judge. But there is at least some bigotry and hostility there.

George writes: "The evangelical tradition is to be be credited with many great things: the founding of America, an amazing literary tradition, the abolition of the slave trade in England and the US, the revolution of religious freedom, and the list goes on."

The founding of America? Calling that an evangelical accomplishment is like calling Thomas Jefferson a hemp farmer. He was, but there's a whole lot more to the story.

You may not be an evangelical, George, but you should be on their payroll as a propagandist.

The criticism of the LDS Church as a "cult" seems to carry a great deal of weight with Evangelicals, probably for much the same reason that most secular Americans are vaguely creeped out by the Mormons--because the church DOES have cult-like qualities. From the bizarre revelations, to the mandatory food storage for Armageddon, to the initiation rites, to the special underwear, to the Church Elders buying up vast quantities of land and issuing proclamations from God that line up curiously well with the current political goals and aspirations of the Church... it all just feels closer to Scientology than Presbyterianism.

The Mormons have certainly become more mainstream than the Moonies or the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they seem just as otherworldly when they knock on your door. By contrast, I've never encountered Evangelicals knocking on doors or doing cold calls... they tend to proselytize acquaintances or approach you in public places. It's less aggressive. There's a competition for souls between Mormons and Evangelicals, but it's not a head-to-head competition. It's the cultural divide between a "Church" and a "Cult."

When JFK ran for President, the rap against Catholics had less to do with any perceived oddity of their beliefs than with something closer to concerns about "dual loyalty" among American Jews. Catholics were viewed as potential traitors, immigrants loyal to a powerful foreign organization that set itself apart from the rest of the public. "Home rule is Rome rule" was the old anti-Catholic slogan in Northern Ireland. JFK dispelled those concerns by downplaying his faith and emphasizing his patriotism.

Romney's got a tougher row to hoe. He's trying to appeal to Republican primary voters by playing up his faith. But his faith, quite simply, is strange and off-putting to other faiths and secular voters alike. His supporters can toss around words like "bigotry" if they like, but it's Romney's own fault for making his "faith" a centerpiece of his campaign. I'm more than happy to treat religion as a private matter and not judge people by their beliefs. But if you're going to make your beliefs an election issue, I'm going to vote against people who believe ridiculous things.

LaFollette Prog writes: "The Mormons have certainly become more mainstream than the Moonies or the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they seem just as otherworldly when they knock on your door. By contrast, I've never encountered Evangelicals knocking on doors or doing cold calls... they tend to proselytize acquaintances or approach you in public places. It's less aggressive. There's a competition for souls between Mormons and Evangelicals, but it's not a head-to-head competition. It's the cultural divide between a "Church" and a "Cult.""

Nah, that's just too easy. Maybe evangelicals are too damn lazy to walk door to door. (Try looking into the Amway gang, though - it's got fundie ties and cult written all over it.)

On the other hand, I'm not familiar with any Mormon televangelists. Do they exist in Utah? Isn't there something cultic about that phenomenon, as well as in groups like the homoerotic Promise Keepers?

Then there are the reprehensible Campus Crusaders, who behave exactly as recruiters for the Moonies and so forth once did.

Again, Romney's religious beliefs are no goofier than those of the evangelicals by any rational measure - and the behavior of his church isn't, either. Maybe he should challenge Huckabee to a snakehandling contest and get it over with.

First, while I can certainly accept calling the Branch Davidians or People's Temple a "cult", that word, when applied to any mainstream religion, ceases to have meaning. It simply means any religion that has different beliefs from the person using the word. It's the "judicial activism" of religion.

Second, while I don't think that merely seeing Mormons as in competition with evangelicals to prosletyze is bigoted, once they start casting aspersions on Mormons or calling them a "cult" or lying about Mormon doctrine or applying a double-standard towards implausible Mormon beliefs that they won't apply to implausible orthodox Christian ones, they cross the line into bigotry.

Further, I think even the routine of refusing to call Mormons Christians is often bigoted. Most of the believers in these evangelicals' OWN CHURCHES have no opinion on the Nicene Creed, and the personal relationship with Jesus is emphasized in many of these churches' teachings. Given that, it seems to me they have very little ground to refuse to admit that Mormons are Christians.

Finally, as I pointed out on another thread, the central problem here is the number of evangelicals who have ignorant beliefs about the separation of church and state and its importance. The President is not the Chief Preacher. He isn't supposed to be advancing any version of Christianity-- evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, or any other. And its only because so many religious conservatives have thrown this principle by the wayside that we are even having this discussion.

First, while I can certainly accept calling the Branch Davidians or People's Temple a "cult", that word, when applied to any mainstream religion, ceases to have meaning.

This is a lame response. The LDS Church, in the Nineteenth Century, met every imaginable definition of the word "cult." Church members pulled up stakes and followed their deranged leader from town to town, practicing polygamy. That the Mormons have grown in numbers and moved considerably closer to the cultural mainstream in the past Century does not magically make their theology any less bizarre or their organizational structure any less cultish.

I don't accept that it's bigoted to question the judgment of people who believe bizarre things and claim these beliefs are the guiding force in their lives. I won't vote for anyone who claims to take every word of the Bible literally, because to me this is prima facie evidence of poor judgment. I certainly won't vote for anyone who takes the Book of Mormon literally. At least the Bible has been around long enough to make its divine origin semi-plausible. The Book of Mormon is about as convincing as a Nigerian e-mail scam.

Elections really ought to be about questions of political ideology and pragmatic platforms. In an ideal campaign, I'd never hold anyone's religion against them. But in recent years, the Republicans have sought to make their candidates' religious faith a centerpiece of the campaign. Christian voters are expected to take professions of religious faith as evidence of personal character, judgment, moral principles, and political ideology. It isn't any more or less bigoted for secular voters to hear the same message and draw the opposite conclusions about a candidate's character, judgment, moral principles, and political ideology.

Theological heterodoxy aside, there is a more general principle that brings me pause concerning members of a certain kind of club who run for the highest public office in the nation. The LDS does have a layer of ritual secrecy that leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Ritualistic secrets, whether they be private oaths, ambiguously symbolic gestures and handshakes, and so forth, such things are examples of how certain communities weave a magic aura around its inner circle, surrounding itself with cryptic entry points.

In that sense, Mormonism has more in common with say Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism than historic Christianity, at least in terms of the function of ritual. While historic Christianity also has symbols and rituals and signifying expressions, there are no secrets. Nothing is to be done behind closed doors. The "Secret wisdom" of Gnosticism was one of the earliest movements in conflict with early Christianity and for good reason: the gospel was a matter of public proclamation in clear and rational discourse. The idea of Ascensions to higher layers of spiritual insight -- through wise sages and secret paths of course -- was opposed from the beginning.

For that same reason I have never been comfortable with the current and former U.S. presidents belonging to secret societies-- e.g. Freemasonry, Skull and Bones, and what not. What I'm getting at is, does it require a certain kind of person who would appreciate that kind of closed community so tightly bound by secrecy at its core? Would that sort of individual also have the potential for duplicity regarding one's public face and private face? These are open ended questions for me, and I suppose on how much one's commitment to the principles of their voluntary associations (in this case the principle of secrecy-as-virtue) extends into other endeavors.

j

The LDS Church, in the Nineteenth Century, met every imaginable definition of the word "cult." Church members pulled up stakes and followed their deranged leader from town to town, practicing polygamy. That the Mormons have grown in numbers and moved considerably closer to the cultural mainstream in the past Century does not magically make their theology any less bizarre or their organizational structure any less cultish.

No, LaFollette. What makes them less cultish is that THEY CHANGED THEIR DOCTRINES. Yes, the LDS church that practiced polygyny, had its members swear an oath of vengeance against the US, excluded blacks from the priesthood, and had its members agree that they would be disemboweled if they disclosed secret temple ceremonies was cultish. But THEY DON'T DO THOSE THINGS ANYMORE. They mainstreamed.

There ARE Mormon cults. Warren Jeffs' FLDS church qualifies. But mainstream Mormonism is not a cult if the term is going to have any real meaning.

At least the Bible has been around long enough to make its divine origin semi-plausible. The Book of Mormon is about as convincing as a Nigerian e-mail scam.

I've never understood this argument. Because a book was written by people 2,000 years ago who had no fricking idea about basic chemistry, physics, or astronomy, and there was no reliable mass media around to challenge their factual assertions or document that things didn't happened, this makes the Bible MORE reliable? If anything, any more modern religion is much more likely to be true than an ancient one, in that at least there are many more checks in place against wild factual claims.

Think about this-- many Christians believe they know whether a woman who lived 2,000 years ago had sex or not. Exactly how are we supposed to credit this as more reliable than the claim that someone found plates in his backyard 200 years ago?

Dilan, I don't really want to dwell on this topic, but reliability isn't the issue here. Plausibility is. It's essentially impossible to prove anything one way or another about the life of Jesus, because there are so few independent records of his life. A literal reading of the Bible is, frankly, absurd. But I don't think the Episcopal Church demands a staggering level of credulity on the part of the believer.

By contrast, Joseph Smith is a very well-documented historical figure, and the record isn't kind.

George: "The evangelical tradition is to be be credited with many great things: the founding of America, an amazing literary tradition, the abolition of the slave trade in England and the US, the revolution of religious freedom, and the list goes on. All these events in modern Western history importantly come out of the evangelical tradition."

As has already been pointed out, the founding of America was not an evangelical accomplishment (this is all assuming that it makes sense to talk about 'evangelicalism' existing 200 years ago which has any real ties to current evangelicalism).

Going on - 'amazing literary tradition'? In terms of evangelical literature, yes. Other than that?

Abolition? In case you haven't noticed it, the parts of evangelicalism prominent in the GOP today are those who *opposed* abolition. The GOP is not the party of Lincoln; it's the party of Jefferson Davis. BTW - that's a quote from the current Senate Minority Leader.

'the revolution of religious freedom'. Again, that's not the part of evangelicalism prominent in the GOP today. The Danbury Baptists are not welcome in the GOP today.

Dilan,

LaFollette is quite correct. The historical record is clear about Joseph Smith as it is clear about Muhammed (and I might add, not particularly complimentary to either one). Everything from his inventing so-called ancient Egyptian writing which was nothing of the sort, to his stories about vast Hebrew empires fighting over north America in the first millennium BC, to the Jewish origin of the Native Americans, to the fact that he 'married' eleven UNDERAGE GIRLS, to his ridiculous parodies of the King James version, speaks of a man who was conconcting a blatantly obvious and preposterous forgery.

The Mormon conception of God is strictly speaking, not a God at all, since the Mormon 'God' is a corporeal being, a man who became a God. By any sensible definition of a God, God is a wholly immaterial spirit who is in no way corporeal. The Mormon idea of a corporeal, physical 'god' is, as was said in another thread, so absurd that no one, neither orthodox Christian, heretic, or pagan in the pre-modern world proposed such an idea. To paraphrase Orwell, a corporeal God is something so absurd that only a modern man could believe it.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is both perfectly congruent with the rest of the Christian story, and also sublime and compelling. There are many people who have seen the Virgin Mary in visions, none of them have challenged the fact that she was a virgin. Mormon 'miracles' on the other hand, seem like they were just made up out of whole cloth. The magic sunglasses which the angel gave Joseph Smith to read the tablets, etc.

Dilan, I don't really want to dwell on this topic, but reliability isn't the issue here. Plausibility is. It's essentially impossible to prove anything one way or another about the life of Jesus, because there are so few independent records of his life. A literal reading of the Bible is, frankly, absurd. But I don't think the Episcopal Church demands a staggering level of credulity on the part of the believer.

By contrast, Joseph Smith is a very well-documented historical figure, and the record isn't kind.

OK, so if you are willing to discard its scriptures almost completely, Christianity is plausible! I would suppose that you could say that about just about every religion, couldn't you?

But you know, there actually is a parallel in orthodox Christianity to the things that we know about Joseph Smith, LaFollette. It's the messy early history of Christianity, in which contradictory gospels were written well after the events they chronicled by people who didn't witness them, and an orthodox testament won out over other testaments because it was able to attach itself to state power and because of issues of luck and geography rather than because it was accurate.

A person trying to establish on a rational level (I am not talking about religious faith here) that orthodox Christianity was more likely to be true than Mormon Christianity would need to explain how the true teachings of Jesus could possibly emerge from such a messy process.

And one last thing. I don't think one can separate the scriptures from other beliefs on the plausibility metric the way you want to do it. The only source that tells us that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is the same source that contains all those other things that you contend are not important. Again, one has to claim that people who were totally ignorant of basic physics, chemistry, and astronomy and who had every reason to make up stories about deities which could explain how things worked are somehow MORE likely to have gotten things right than people who came later and were less ignorant.

The Mormon conception of God is strictly speaking, not a God at all, since the Mormon 'God' is a corporeal being, a man who became a God. By any sensible definition of a God, God is a wholly immaterial spirit who is in no way corporeal.

Hector, you are speaking nonsense. None of us has any emperical experience with a God. None of us has any workable and testable hypothesis of how a God would work, what her powers would be, and how she would use them.

So when you say that God has to be an immaterial spirit, you are, with all due respect, pulling that out of your behind. You don't know that. You can't know that. There is no rational basis for such a claim. If there is a God, she could be anything she wants to be. Corporeal, noncorporeal, whatever.

I might add, that to me, the idea that a man could become a God is no less plausible than the idea that a God can become a man, or that a man can become immortal, both of which are orthodox Christian beliefs.

Look, to me, this is like comparing the relative validity of a magic mushroom hallucination and an acid trip. Neither one is plausible to me. But if something's plausible to you, that's fine: that's what faith is all about. Where believers go wrong is in thinking that they can have one foot in the spiritual world and one foot in the rational world when making these arguments. Sorry, once you start describing supernatural events, logic and reason are out the window, because there is no evidence for any phenomenon that one might call "God" and thus no way to describe what attributes she can or cannot have or what she does and does not do.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is both perfectly congruent with the rest of the Christian story, and also sublime and compelling. There are many people who have seen the Virgin Mary in visions, none of them have challenged the fact that she was a virgin. Mormon 'miracles' on the other hand, seem like they were just made up out of whole cloth. The magic sunglasses which the angel gave Joseph Smith to read the tablets, etc.

Again, I don't think that hallucinations are a very reliable way of determining whether someone had sex or not. (By the way, what are the content of these visions? Did they see Mary's hymen or something? How do they know that Mary didn't bang someone just before appearing in their vision?)

And if you are going to play comparative miracles, I would think that orthodox Christianity has plenty of claims that are just as implausible as Joseph Smith's seeing stones, e.g., not only the virgin birth but Moses parting the Red Sea, not to mention all the phony "miracles" that the Catholic hierarchy uses as an excuse to declare people saints.

Dilan, the cosmological proof of the existence of God relies on the fact that the material reality that surrounds us, matter and energy, rocks and trees and so forth, had an origin in the Big Bang, and could not have produced itself (since we have no experience with material nature conjuring matter or nature out of nowhere). Yet it clearly did have an origin, therefore it must have been the work of a nonmaterial being. You could logically argue that that Being may have been God, the Devil, a group of gods, an angel, etc. The one thing you can't logically argue, given the nature of the cosmological proof, is that it was a material being who did it (like one of Francis Crick's intelligent aliens). Because that merely creates a problem of where did that corporeal being come from, therefore infinite regress. Hence, God cannot be a corporeal being, by the simple demands of logic.

The idea that God can become a man is to say that God could diminish or suppress part of His nature, which is eminently plausible. We all know it's easier to take something away than to add something. (Incidentally, the premise is that Christ had two natures, not one, so it's more a matter of coexistence than of something 'becoming' something else.) The idea of man becoming God however, depends on the idea that we can add something infintely different and superior to our own nature, which seems illogical.

The point about Marian visions is that many people have experienced the presence of St. Mary, therefore she would have no doubt communicated to them something so important about herself, if it were in fact true. If St. Mary appeared to you and you started falling at her feet and saying 'Holy Virgin, in the midst of your days of glory, forget not the sorrows of this earth', don't you think she would correct you if she were not, in fact, a virgin anymore?

As for the Old Testament, it is a reasonable Christian position not to take the Old Testament stories (which are, at best, stories by men who may have experienced God) as literal in the same way as we take the New Testament (which is the biography of God Incarnate, his sayings, and the sayings of people who knew him).

Hector, why couldn't everything happened out of nowhere without the intervention of a deity? There have been several ideas bounced around about what was before the Big Bang--one idea is that the Big Bang is like a White Hole from another universe with similar (not necessarily the same) laws to ours. No need to drag a deity into it.

Grumpy realist.

Good point. Then where did that other universe come from. You get the problem of infinite regress again. The only way you can get out of that conundrum is by postulating a non-material originating power. That power need not be God, but he/she/it must necessarily be non-corporeal, non-material and not subject to the laws of physics.

Hector writes: "You get the problem of infinite regress again. The only way you can get out of that conundrum is by postulating a non-material originating power. That power need not be God, but he/she/it must necessarily be non-corporeal, non-material and not subject to the laws of physics."

In other words, by saying "it's magic!" and claiming the problem is solved.

Come on, Hector. This is Philosophy 101. You don't get around the problem of infinite regress by throwing "non-corporeal" at it. Where did the watchmaker come from? Saying it didn't have to come from anywhere because you can't pinch it is just silly.

If this unpinchable gawd can have always existed, then the universe, all by itself and in some form or another, can also have always existed. You can't say, and your logical gymnastics don't prove a thing.

OK, so if you are willing to discard its scriptures almost completely, Christianity is plausible! I would suppose that you could say that about just about every religion, couldn't you?

It's worth noting that Augustine stated as early as 408 or so A.D. that the Bible should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what is empirically observable through science. So it's not a question of "discarding" the scriptures but rather how they should be used. Oftentimes, a piece of scripture can be more powerful when viewed metaphorically than when viewed only literally (of course, some parts of the Bible can be viewed very well as history and other parts are valuable both as history and metaphor). But sometimes I feel like folks that are preoccupied with whether Biblical stories are literally true (on either side) run the risk of missing the point of the story.

As to Mormonism, to me it's clear that some of the claims made in the Book of Mormon and otherwise are objectively false and silly, but I don't think that would disqualify any Mormon from receiving my vote unless he or she stressed them as part of his/her campaign. More troublingly, the LDS church has way-too-recently embraced racism, polygamy, and cultlike activity. But that certainly doesn't mean (to me) that no one who subscribed to the basic tenets of Mormonism is not woth voting for. While I believe a candidate's faith is a relevant factor, you also have to look at the individual and their relationship with the faith and what it says about them. In some respects, being a moderate Moslem, for example, could say more about one's character than being an orthodox (small o) Christian. As Melville said, better a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian. I certainly won't restrict my choices to Guiliani, Kucinich, or Biden just because they happen to be Catholic, and, while I think many things about the Koran and the history of Islam are objectionable, I would not cast a vote against Reihan Salam...

Dilan, the cosmological proof of the existence of God relies on the fact that the material reality that surrounds us, matter and energy, rocks and trees and so forth, had an origin in the Big Bang, and could not have produced itself (since we have no experience with material nature conjuring matter or nature out of nowhere). Yet it clearly did have an origin, therefore it must have been the work of a nonmaterial being. You could logically argue that that Being may have been God, the Devil, a group of gods, an angel, etc. The one thing you can't logically argue, given the nature of the cosmological proof, is that it was a material being who did it (like one of Francis Crick's intelligent aliens). Because that merely creates a problem of where did that corporeal being come from, therefore infinite regress. Hence, God cannot be a corporeal being, by the simple demands of logic.

We are getting too far afield here, but let's just say that there are all sorts of hypotheses for whether anything preceded the Big Bang and if so, what, and there are also so many mysteries in the observed universe-- quantum mechanics, strings, dark matter-- that it's a little earlier to be positing the Big Bang as any sort of proof that a noncorporeal being caused the universe.

Again, you can believe this as a matter of FAITH, but it isn't something that can be proven "by the simple demands of logic" as you think.

The idea that God can become a man is to say that God could diminish or suppress part of His nature, which is eminently plausible. We all know it's easier to take something away than to add something. (Incidentally, the premise is that Christ had two natures, not one, so it's more a matter of coexistence than of something 'becoming' something else.) The idea of man becoming God however, depends on the idea that we can add something infintely different and superior to our own nature, which seems illogical.

Again, you are using "logic" to mean "things I can't prove but which I have to assume to support my faith". Since you know nothing about how noncorporeal beings work, or even if they exist, you can know nothing about whether they can change into or merge with corporeal beings or exist in a corporeal phase, and you have no idea whether that constitutes "adding" to them, "subtracing" from them, or multiplying or dividing them, for that matter.

The point about Marian visions is that many people have experienced the presence of St. Mary, therefore she would have no doubt communicated to them something so important about herself, if it were in fact true. If St. Mary appeared to you and you started falling at her feet and saying 'Holy Virgin, in the midst of your days of glory, forget not the sorrows of this earth', don't you think she would correct you if she were not, in fact, a virgin anymore?

If she didn't, she would hardly be the first woman to mislead a man about that particular matter.

If I were Romney I would go after the fact that evangeicals by and large are bigots. They would no more vote for a Mormon, a Catholic, or a Black. Sorry Obama. You're in for the same problem if you get the nomnation.

hugo writes: "some parts of the Bible can be viewed very well as history"

Not without making a whole lot of excuses and doing a whole lot of wishing.

Interesting fray developing here.

RE: Hector's comment 12/4 @ 6:10pm , "inventing so-called ancient Egyptian writing which was nothing of the sort"

65 years ago, the LDS Church published in its official magazine of the time, "The Improvement Era," photographic comparisons of the characters Joseph Smith copied from the golden plates with characters from verified Egyptian writing. For some reason, people still question this.

Here's the link, see especially the 4th through 7th pages of this article for side-by-side comparisons:
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/1942_02-IE.PDF

All three articles in this series can be linked from here:
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley.htm

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the original New Testament than any other denomination. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” The Church believes in the New Testament, not the man-made Creeds.

Perhaps the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood). It is encouraging that Paul Weyrich, Wayne Grudem and Bob Jones III, (along with Jay Sekulow, Mark DeMoss, and Dr. John Willke, a founder and past president of the National Right to Life Committee.) have rejected bigotry and now support Mitt Romney on the basis that he is the most moral candidate with the best qualifications.

I'm wondering why we need to "get out of" the "problem" of infinite regress, with regard to "creation." Hector claims God must be immaterial or else we have infinite regress problems -- but why is infinite regress a problem?

Mormonism doesn't think it is. Mormonism teaches that "as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." Eternity is an endless progression (in both directions, backward and forward) of worlds and of gods. The "God" people speak of and worship is the God of this world (and others) -- and "the only God with which we have to do" -- but that does not mean this God is the only god that is or ever was.

Infinite regression is not a problem. And the arguments claiming that the only god that makes sense is a noncorporeal one are silly. On some level, the belief in any kind of god transcends "sense" -- so it's silly to claim that only certain conceptions of god "make sense," and others don't.

Hector says: The idea of man becoming God however, depends on the idea that we can add something infintely different and superior to our own nature, which seems illogical.

It may "seem" that way to you, but it's not. If you believe Jesus when he says we are God's "children" and God's "heirs," and that -- if we do what we're supposed to -- we will "inherit all that God has," then why is it so "illogical" to believe that humans are gods-in-embryo, so to speak?

First off, God is only "infinitely different" from us if your conception is of an amorphous, noncorporeal, nondescript, energy-type thing; but if you start with the premise that God is corporeal, that we are made (indeed!) "in His image" (i.e., we don't look much different) -- well, then the whole "infinitely different" claim sort of goes out the window, doesn't it?

Sure, God is "infinitely superior" -- but that's where the notion of what Mormons call "eternal progression" enters the picture. If you do what you're supposed to (i.e., be righteous, etc.), you will progress in that righteousness over time, and into the eternities -- you will, that is, "grow up," so to speak. And as a child becomes an adult, so we as God's children are capable of becoming gods.

Really, not so "illogical" after all, is it?

At least not any more "illogical" than the belief in a nondescript, noncorporeal, incomprehensible God -- who we will just sit around and worship forever, in the afterlife (where? to what end?), if we're good enough to earn the privilege.

"By any sensible definition of a God,"

No sentence or argument that begins this way can possibly end up making any sense.

Anyone with questions about Mormonism can go here:

http://onemormonsperspective.blogspot.com/

Ignoring the tangential debate of "your nonsense is bigger than mine"... Ross, again, I agree with your major point. Softpedaling the theological differences and emphasizing nice family photo ops is not going to solve Romney's problems with Christians. It's just going to make many evangelical voters more suspicious.

The popular Christian fundamentalist stereotype of Mormons is that we are religious opportunists who will do and say anything to get our missionaries in your door.

While it's true that Romney's softpedalling does nothing to challenge such stereotypes, it's not the source of his troubles.

The source of Romney's troubles is that he changed his position on important POLITICAL issues - such as abortion and gay marriage. You combine THAT with the religious stereotypes and Romney has a serious problem in the Bible Belt. He's confirming all the negative existing suspicions. When he tries to minimize differences, or act like he's just one of the Christian Right good-ol-boys, he just makes things worse.

That said...

The idea that Mormons are hiding all their weird doctrines when the missionaries show up at your door is not really accurate. If you don't believe me, invite a couple missionaries over and listen carefully. You'll get the following concepts over the course of your PRE-BAPTISM discussions:

-God has a physical body
-God is our literal spirit Father
-Jesus is our brother
-Satan is our brother (meaning Jesus and Satan are brothers - it always cracks me up how some Christians act like this is some sort of news flash - or that we should care)
-The family structure is eternal and God has a Wife
-Joseph Smith saw God, dug up gold plates and translated a new volume of scripture
-From now on, you'll be expected to donate 10% of your income and permanently swear off drugs, alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee and sex outside marriage

That's what you get from the missionaries before you've even committed to the LDS Church. I know, because I used to be an LDS missionary and we had to memorize these discussions.

Polygamy isn't in the missionary discussions because we don't practice it. But it's hardly a big secret in America or other parts of the globe. Neither do we keep the topic hush-hush at church.

About the only thing we aren't really up front about is the odd doctrines that were used to justify excluding blacks from the Priesthood, and the Church's opposition to the ERA. But no one's perfect.

So I'm not sure what the emailer's specific beef was, or whether he's just full of it.

Bot writes: "It is encouraging that Paul Weyrich, Wayne Grudem and Bob Jones III, (along with Jay Sekulow, Mark DeMoss, and Dr. John Willke, a founder and past president of the National Right to Life Committee.) have rejected bigotry and now support Mitt Romney on the basis that he is the most moral candidate with the best qualifications."

So some of the worst wingnuts in the country are supposedly backing your guy and you think that's a positive thing?

Also, using "Bob Jones" and "rejected bigotry" in the same sentence is hilarious. Let me know when Fred Phelps joins the team.

Seth R reports: "God has a physical body"

Can it dunk a basketball? Does it tan easily?

"The family structure is eternal and God has a Wife"

Where does she shop? And how does she get along with her mother-in-law?

"Joseph Smith saw God, dug up gold plates and translated a new volume of scripture"

It sure beats working for a living.

I don't think one can separate the scriptures from other beliefs on the plausibility metric the way you want to do it. The only source that tells us that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is the same source that contains all those other things that you contend are not important. Again, one has to claim that people who were totally ignorant of basic physics, chemistry, and astronomy and who had every reason to make up stories about deities which could explain how things worked are somehow MORE likely to have gotten things right than people who came later and were less ignorant.

Dilan, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But I do think you're making several common mistakes that atheists tend to make in regard to Christianity.

First of all, the Bible is packaged as a single source... a closed set of holy scriptures... but only certain strains of Fundamentalist Christians actually view the Bible in this way. Most Catholics and Mainline Protestants understand that the Bible is a canon of independently written scriptures by numerous different observers, which has been edited by committee.

The Old Testament is important for context and the Epistles are important for Interpretation, but the core of the faith is the Gospel. Any church that follows the Nicene Creed essentially allows you to disbelieve in all the Physics and Chemistry and most of the history presented in the Bible and still be a Christian in good standing. Which is fortunate for them, since the Bible is a profoundly weird and disturbing book with very little internal logic.

Now, I no longer share their faith. But we aren't talking about empirical truth. We're discussing whether someone's faith should be held against them in the political arena. I don't have a problem with political leaders who believe things that I consider to be improbable. I do have a bit of a problem with people who believe things that have been conclusively debunked by modern science. And I have an even bigger problem with politicians who proudly believe that a noted child-raping polygamist huckster from upstate New York was the great moral leader of the Nineteenth Century, or that it was God's Will to exclude people of color from His True Church until the 1970s.

Actually LaFollette, blacks were allowed into the LDS Church for the entirety of its existence. There was actually a large influx of African conversions well before the 1970s. Joseph Smith even ordained a few of them into the religion's lay ministry during his lifetime. The exclusion of blacks was solely an exclusion from the lay ministry and that started with Brigham Young. They were not allowed the Priesthood until the 70s.

And pray tell, what exactly has been "conclusively debunked by modern science?" If you're referring to the DNA thing, I'm not impressed.

These comments are all jokes!!!

First of all, the Bible is packaged as a single source... a closed set of holy scriptures... but only certain strains of Fundamentalist Christians actually view the Bible in this way. Most Catholics and Mainline Protestants understand that the Bible is a canon of independently written scriptures by numerous different observers, which has been edited by committee.

I don't think that's relevant to my point, LaFollette. My point is that a bunch of fundamentally ignorant people made up a story about a man who was raised from the dead, and used that story to fill in various gaps in their knowledge of how the world works.

And we are supposed to find that more believable than that a very imperfect man received a message from God in upstate New York in the 19th Century.

And I have an even bigger problem with politicians who proudly believe that a noted child-raping polygamist huckster from upstate New York was the great moral leader of the Nineteenth Century, or that it was God's Will to exclude people of color from His True Church until the 1970s.

LaFollette, I find lots of things about Mormonism implausible. But if there is a God, I think the idea that she might choose some very imperfect man as her messenger isn't implausible at all. And I don't think the Mormon's racist policies towards blacks (now jettisoned) are any different than numerous atrocious policies advocated by the Catholic Church and other orthodox Christian denominations over the centuries. The Southern Baptists, for instance, endorsed slavery and were able to point to biblical passages that supported their claim.

It's all the same. People WANT to say that holding SOME unsupportable beliefs is justifiable while holding others is not. But it's ALL bunk, made up by humans who couldn't bear to face the truth about our existence or didn't know any better.

Seth R writes: "And pray tell, what exactly has been "conclusively debunked by modern science?" If you're referring to the DNA thing, I'm not impressed."

You couldn't be. It strikes too close to home. Just like the fundies who claim carbon dating doesn't work and that the Earth is 10,000 years old, you are simply unable to apply critical thinking in your own backyard.

Ross already had a thread addressing the subject of whether Mormonism's claims are completely unbelievable a few months back. Probably best to refer any further questions about Mormonism's general credibility to that discussion.

And pray tell, what exactly has been "conclusively debunked by modern science?

Um, most of the book of Genesis if you stubbornly refuse to take it on a purely metaphorical level.

Hold the phone. Biblical literalism isn't really Mormonism's bag. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

Mormons only believe the Bible insofar as the transmission process between God and the Holy Book as we have it today wasn't screwed up by human error, no matter what Mitt was misguidedly trying to say at the YouTube debate a couple nights ago.

Seth, I guess I'm just going to have to spell it out clearly. I wrote about Creationists and Mormons separately, because I am aware that these are separate groups. I'm calling into question the judgment of both groups.

Thank you Mormons are fine dandies. It helps the rest of us to be proud of our first grade education. Not only are mormons not christians neither is anyone, the suffix ian is for places not people. Joseph Smith is a welding term with Smith a suffix.wouldn't God or Jesus have told him that neither of their names were correct? Missing letter J part one. Our English alphabet as it is now with 26 letters is only 375 years old. since 1630, that explans the fool who has a bible published before the alphabet in color in 1530 or the 1611 or 1622 version. There would not have been a King James, or j
John the Baptist or Jesus 1500 years before the English alphabet.O I forgot that is was translated. thabks for admitting that you are dumb enough to change a persons name.You do not change a persons name. those of us with bio-metric names that match our fingerprint symbols 95% of the world will never be dumb enough to accept that there was a person named Adam 5500 years before the English alphabet even though the chinnese alphabet is over 25000 years old. and the hebrew alphabet has no bio-metric name symbols. No item, name or situation was available during the bible or book of Mormon time periods that are in those books. The camel is from austraila, the donkey is from new Mexico. They were taken to the middle east in 1585 see ship manifest records. The salt lake city temple was built in 1610 by the Mexicans as the northern territory capital building it is the oldest still standing building in north America. Form First grade history. see Richard Packham@teleport.com, t
Thomas Murphy college anthroplogist chair person DNA and the book of Mormon, skin, sin and seed. All religions are cults. treating others well and religion are oxymorons. Thank you for the formate comments welcome john Cunningham johncunningham1956@netzero.com