Jump to content

Mormonism: Not A Cult, Not A Problem


Vance

Recommended Posts

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mouw-mormons-20111120,0,699207.story

From our friend Richard Mouw.

"We evangelicals should cast aside old suspicions and hostilities and listen carefully during this campaign. I believe we should make our voting decisions on the basis of what a Mormon candidate — or any candidate — actually has to say about the values and issues we all care about as citizens."

Link to comment

While I'll agree that we're not a cult in the EV prejudicial construct of the word. I believe that the Saints themselves have a better understanding of what they believe than any other outside person or group.

To me religion is/should be irrelevent in voting for a political/office of trust including the President in the US.

Link to comment

Overall a fair-minded article, although I wish he didn’t have to say the following:

“I have serious disagreements with my Mormon friends about basic issues of faith that have eternal consequences. These include issues regarding the nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity and the character of the afterlife.”

It’s like he is trying to be our friend, but at the same time still believes that we are misguided (at best) or going to hell (at worst). He just has a nicer way of saying it. If he didn’t include the above comment, I’m afraid that many Evangelicals would simply have dismissed him on the spot.

I guess it goes both ways, though. We will just have to wait until the next life to find out who had it right.

Link to comment

Overall a fair-minded article, although I wish he didn’t have to say the following:

“I have serious disagreements with my Mormon friends about basic issues of faith that have eternal consequences. These include issues regarding the nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity and the character of the afterlife.”

It’s like he is trying to be our friend, but at the same time still believes that we are misguided (at best) or going to hell (at worst). He just has a nicer way of saying it. If he didn’t include the above comment, I’m afraid that many Evangelicals would simply have dismissed him on the spot.

I guess it goes both ways, though. We will just have to wait until the next life to find out who had it right.

Yeah, that paragraph jumped out at me as well.

Best case, he was just trying to reduce the amount of hate mail.

Link to comment

Overall a fair-minded article, although I wish he didn’t have to say the following:

“I have serious disagreements with my Mormon friends about basic issues of faith that have eternal consequences. These include issues regarding the nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity and the character of the afterlife.”

Why?

Would you have rather he withold his intellectial honesty?

Link to comment

Why?

Would you have rather he withold his intellectial honesty?

Well, no. But I would have preferred it if he simply would have said something like “I disagree with some aspects of Mormonism.” Or if he would have worded it in a way that explained more about what he believes, instead of putting it in the context of what he disagrees with about Mormonism.

But he really seems like a decent, good person who does his best to follow the Lord the best way that he knows how. And his article was well written and reasonable. I only intended to offer some mild criticism. I wish there were more Evangelicals out there like Richard Mouw.

Link to comment

Senator:

No. ALL public officials in the US swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the US.

For members of Congress at the start of each new US. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The US presently has two Muslim congressmen Andre Carson, and Keith Ellison.

Link to comment

Well, no. But I would have preferred it if he simply would have said something like “I disagree with some aspects of Mormonism.” Or if he would have worded it in a way that explained more about what he believes, instead of putting it in the context of what he disagrees with about Mormonism.

You seem to have discomfort with candid speech relating to Mormonism. I find it engaging as long as there is indication that the speaker is speaking honestly and without hostility.

If I were an evangelical listening to a highly revered leader and theologian of my faith and hear him say, "I disagree with some aspects of Mormonism", I would be screaming inside, "what, what are the aspects", in order to better inform my own knowledge of my faith, and its relationship to Mormonism.

Him having given detail to an otherwise benign statement, gives the statement itself credibility, otherwise it can be dismissed as simple bias.

But, no need to belabor the point.

But he really seems like a decent, good person who does his best to follow the Lord the best way that he knows how. And his article was well written and reasonable. I only intended to offer some mild criticism. I wish there were more Evangelicals out there like Richard Mouw.

Indeed

Link to comment
To me religion is/should be irrelevent in voting for a political/office of trust including the President in the US.

I have to say I completely agree with your opinion. I watched the latest Republican debate and quite frankly it seem that they were competing to be the next pastor rather than the next president. Each one of them falling over themselves to prove that THEY were the most religious one of the group. Clearly their intent is to convince Republicans that if they are the most religious candidate, then THAT is the main reason to vote for them. Quite honestly I feel they are using their religious beliefs to hustle votes, which seems rather tawdry to me. And while this approach may work well with the far right, I personally think that mainstream America are sick of this kind of campaigning.

Link to comment

I have to say I completely agree with your opinion. I watched the latest Republican debate and quite frankly it seem that they were competing to be the next pastor rather than the next president. Each one of them falling over themselves to prove that THEY were the most religious one of the group. Clearly their intent is to convince Republicans that if they are the most religious candidate, then THAT is the main reason to vote for them. Quite honestly I feel they are using their religious beliefs to hustle votes, which seems rather tawdry to me. And while this approach may work well with the far right, I personally think that mainstream America are sick of this kind of campaigning.

It's been going on since the the emergence of the New Right in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Unfortunately, it's a tradition that many republicans have come to expect (or demand, even). I think that's what annoys so many people about politics in general. It's just a game and the winner is the person who plays it best, rather than the person best qualified to lead.

Link to comment

bluebell:

Unfortunately it is far older than that. But just limiting it to the US. Thomas Jefferson was called an Atheist in his time.

Definitely, but it was specifically with the emergence(sp?) of the supreme success of the Televangelist movement and the republican incorporation of their mailing lists and agendas as a way to gain voters and money that the connection between Christianity and republicanism really solidified.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...