Jump to content

Mormons are "creepy and admirable"


Stargazer

Recommended Posts

An article praising LDS values -- in a kind of backhanded way -- appeared in The Atlantic this week.

One Blasphemer’s New Admiration for Mormons

The author, Kurt Anderson, considers LDS theology to be far more unbelievable than that of even standard Christianity (which he also doesn't like), but says: "I’ve also always had a sincere soft spot for Mormons because of their sincere commitment to leading virtuous lives. In [my novel] Heyday, my two Mormon characters are good and kind. In [my novel]Turn of the Century, my character who ridicules Mormonism calls them 'creepy and admirable.'”

He goes on to praise, for example, LDS members of Congress Mike Lee and Jeff Flake, as well as presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Evan McMullin for speaking out about how Roy Moore needs to drop out of his senate race.

He concludes by saying "The instant dump-Moore Republicans weren’t only Mormons (although none, tellingly, was a southerner). John McCain tweeted right away that “the allegations against Roy Moore are … disqualifying” and that “he should immediately step aside.” But Latter-day Saints were the brave, virtuous avant garde, and as ridiculous as I find their supernatural beliefs, they are in this instance an outpost of true, real-world righteousness in a party in the grip of a terrible Faustian bargain."

On the other hand, another article in The Atlantic appeared a couple of days later -- this one written by a Latter-day Saint, Hal Boyd. It took Kurt Anderson to task on his "soft anti-Mormon prejudice."

The Ignorance of Mocking Mormonism

In which he discusses the "...long and rather ignoble tradition of simultaneously praising and mocking Mormons."

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I hate when people think they know enough about our religion to judge whether it makes any sense and then get the very basics wrong.  

In the overwhelming majority of cases, their judgment is not based on a weighing of any evidence which might bear on the matter (pro or con), but, rather, is a simple a priori, ipso facto, res ipsa loquitur conclusion that religious belief, whatever the substance of the belief, is not tenable.

You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up for you. ;):D 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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