Thread: Should Christians criticize Mormonism? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025959
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
It seems to me that if (orthodox) Christianity means anything distinct at all (theologically, intellectually, historically), then Mormonism cannot be legitimate (theologically, intellectually, or whatever).
As such, one would anticipate the desire for Christians to "oppose" it at some level, at least within the church (if not in the wider world).
And yet, in my experience, any open discussion of 'cults' in general (and Mormons in particular) is either low-priority or outright frowned upon, even among Christians. There seem to be three reasons for this:
a) Polemics/apologetics in general are "out of style".
The practical "point" of day-to-day modern Christianity is to fellowship, have prayerful/musical spiritual experiences, and fund missions that "fight poverty". As a bonus, one might possibly learn a Bible story or two and gain insight on the coming of the End Times.
But "fighting" over one's theological distinctives is "that thing the Reformers used to do hundreds of years ago". Since history has deemed that to be bad, then running in the opposite direction (never disagreeing with someone else's theology) is assumed to be good.
b) If there is a "battle" that Christians need to wage, it is against the larger secular world, and not against any religious groups.
The worry today is not that our children will run off with some cult leader, but that our children will stop coming to church and never come back. Hence, the movement for the "relevant, hip church" that ditches any tradition if it keeps one more young adult coming on Sundays.
(I brought up Mormonism in a Sunday School lesson, and to my surprise, one couple mentioned that their son had married a Mormon, and it was their opinion that the Mormons "lived better lives" than most Christians they knew. I experienced the same resistance when I attempted to criticize the Amish, who were regarded as "very faithful people". If the only standard for a good life is one that is "not secular", how can you argue against that?)
c) If Christians say anything derogatory against Mormons, it opens us up to ridicule from secularists about the "irrationality" of our own faith.
I have experienced this directly on other message boards. The split second someone derisively mentions "Joseph Smith, golden tablets, or holy underwear", the atheists immediately pounce to laugh at "6-day creation, the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus, and the second coming". Rather than attempt to defend Christianity against the secular arguments, most Christians choose instead not to "cast rocks at glass houses" and leave the Mormons alone.
Christians will, however, join in the attack on cults that are led by secularists. Take the example of TV news specials on the Colorado City FLDS church. The stories focus on the "underground railroad" escapees, and their discovery of the wonderful secular world outside the oppressive, backwards compound. Watching these stories, I can't help but think that this narrative is ultimately an attack on us mainstream Christians, whom (atheists would say) need to likewise "leave our compound" and discover the secular world outside our church.
So I wonder, while it is unpopular and can be painful, do Christians have a responsibility to engage in polemical argument (against Mormons in particular), or are we content to let the secularists hold the monopoly on religious ridicule (and pray that God works everything out for us)?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Presumably, there are pond differences here. Mormonism in the UK is a very minor faith group and just not on the radar for most UK Christians.
Personally, while I think there is some dodgy stuff in Mormonism, I would just regard it as a religion like any other and don't see the need for any special polemics against it from Christians. What would be your attitude towards polemics against Islam or Hinduism, both far larger faith groups in the UK?
Edited to add that the FLDS cult is really no longer related to mainstream Mormonism and it is unfair to compare the two.
[ 25. July 2013, 19:26: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What would be your attitude towards polemics against Islam or Hinduism, both far larger faith groups in the UK?
I would argue that the big difference in attitudes between Mormonism and Islam/Hinduism lies in (a) relative evangelism and (b) ethnic/cultural barriers.
Muslims and Hindus (for the most part) do not spend a lot of energy attempting to attract "new converts" the way that the Mormons do, and if an ex-Christian (of Caucasian descent) did attempt to change faiths, the language and cultural barriers that accompany fellowship with those bodies of believers are significant.
Many moons ago in high school, I did a comparative Christian denominations project, where I visited different churches to compare worship experiences. Of all the churches I visited, the Pentecostals and the Mormons were the most virulent in trying to keep me coming back (for months afterward).
As such, I can understand how people who feel alone or isolated in their mainstream churches can gain instant "family" by joining one of these groups. That "ease of transition" that they offer is what makes me consider them to be relatively "dangerous".
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Unlike Islam or Hinduism, Mormonism pretends to be the one true Church, whereas it is in fact not the historic Christian Church at all. This makes it imperative for orthodox Christians who confess the historic Creeds and Christology of the Church to actively oppose Mormonism.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
Unlike Mormonism Islam makes converts at the point of a gun. sentences apostates to death, and believes the world must accept the Islamic way. However, Mormons are a much easier target - you won't get a fatwa against you if you say Brigham Young or Joseph smith were charlatans.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Unlike Mormonism Islam makes converts at the point of a gun. sentences apostates to death, and believes the world must accept the Islamic way. However, Mormons are a much easier target - you won't get a fatwa against you if you say Brigham Young or Joseph smith were charlatans.
That depends on which part of Arizona you live in.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Unlike Mormonism Islam makes converts at the point of a gun. sentences apostates to death, and believes the world must accept the Islamic way. However, Mormons are a much easier target - you won't get a fatwa against you if you say Brigham Young or Joseph smith were charlatans.
That depends on which part of Arizona you live in.
Possibly, but I'd feel a lot safer slagging JS in and part of Arizona than I would criticising Mohammed in Bradford. I really do think that a lot of the anti-Mormons attack them because they feel safe in doing so.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Unlike Mormonism Islam makes converts at the point of a gun. sentences apostates to death, and believes the world must accept the Islamic way. However, Mormons are a much easier target - you won't get a fatwa against you if you say Brigham Young or Joseph smith were charlatans.
Islam is not a monolith, it is incredibly diverse. What you say about 'Islam' is only true of particular Muslim groups - even in Bradford.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Nowadays we are more likely to join in a 'conversation' with Mormons the invite them to share our spiritual journeys and hope they feel as though they 'belong before believing'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Muslims and Hindus (for the most part) do not spend a lot of energy attempting to attract "new converts" the way that the Mormons do, and if an ex-Christian (of Caucasian descent) did attempt to change faiths, the language and cultural barriers that accompany fellowship with those bodies of believers are significant.
In Britain conversion to Islam is likely to be much more of a phenomenon than conversion to Mormonism. In my city there is only one Mormon church, but there are many mosques. Most of the Muslims are from immigrant Muslim families, but their presence probably makes more of an impact on the people who work and live near them than the fleeting presence of a mere handful of Mormon missionaries. A few months ago I was approached by two American Mormon missionaries; I haven't knowingly met any other Mormon missionaries for maybe 15-odd years. But I meet Muslims all the time. I've seen more Muslim material, and I certainly know, or know of, more converts to Islam.
I recently heard a local Baptist minister express his disapproval regarding a church member who'd said how much she enjoyed praying with her Mormon daughter. But I think that's the only time I've personally heard a Christian minister mention Mormons. The Jehovah's Witnesses are far more visible here. The Jehovah's Witness door-knocking habits are mocked in British culture, but far fewer people will have had the contact with Mormons to be able to mock them in the same way.
Mind you, that recent musical about Mormons was very popular in London, contrary to some expectations. The review in 'The Economist' said that was because it played to a British sense of cultural superiority over these 'Americans'. I don't think the interest has much to do with theology, but most British people just see Mormonism as one especially weird example of a more generally weird American religiosity.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
Mormons convert you after you are dead. Hard to avoid that. Doing this to Jews has caused a bit of a ruckus.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Christians should only criticize themselves.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Mormonism received a fairly heavy duty makeover from the right-wing media in the US in order to make Mitt Romney palatable to conservative evangelicals as a Presidential candidates. 10 years ago most evangelicals would have said Mormons weren't Christians and that they wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a Christian. The second is too useful for the right wing machine to let go of so they went to work on the first.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Unlike Mormonism Islam makes converts at the point of a gun.
You really need to get out more.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Mormonism received a fairly heavy duty makeover from the right-wing media in the US in order to make Mitt Romney palatable to conservative evangelicals as a Presidential candidates. 10 years ago most evangelicals would have said Mormons weren't Christians and that they wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a Christian. The second is too useful for the right wing machine to let go of so they went to work on the first.
Interestingly, wherever Mormons lie on the heterodoxy scale, they are sufficiently secure in their beliefs vis-a-vis the larger U.S. society that by no means all Mormons supported Romney in 2012. John Huntsman, a former ambassador in Pres. Obama's first term and the most moderate candidate in the 2012 Republican primary, is a Mormon. (Of course as a moderate in extreme party he didn't do well.) And there were Mormons for Obama and an LDS caucus at the Democratic convention.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The Mormon's are having their own problems.
The rise of the internet is causing a number of Mormons to consider history and facts that aren't mentioned by the church.
some Mormons search the web and find doubt.
(NYTimes article, partial paywall)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Unlike Mormonism Islam makes converts at the point of a gun. sentences apostates to death, and believes the world must accept the Islamic way.
Inflammatory generalisations about Islam may derail this thread which is primarily about Christianity and Mormonism. If you want to have a serious discussion about militant tendencies in Islam, please start a separate thread.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christians should only criticize themselves.
We aren't talking about presuming to judge individuals here, but rather critiquing the aspects of Mormonism that make it not Christian, not part of the historic Church by any stretch of definition. If the LDS "church" didn't present themselves as The Church,I think we could be more circumspect.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christians should only criticize themselves.
That eliminates a lazy but convenient way to identify Christians on the hoof; they are the ones who are busy saying that other groups who call themselves Christians aren't real Christians.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
There are plenty Christians who can handle historical sources to academic standards to do church history or history of religions, and in historical terms Mormonism is about as credible as Dan Brown. But if you support literal-interpretation approaches to the Bible and all the historiographical failings that go with that, and regard the ability to do scholarly history as something for 'secularists' then yes indeed, it makes criticising hilariously awful pseudohistory and bonkers beliefs in other denominations a tad hypocritical.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Should Christians criticize Mormonism? Maybe not, but we should make it clear that it is not Christianity.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
After we´ve made clear how unChristian we are? Or is that implicit, especially in us criticizing, sorry, making clear?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Louise had it right, Martin. It seems perfectly proper to use critical methods in assessing the worth and doctrines of any religion, provided you accept the same fingers being pointed at your own.
I think the same criteria apply more generally to human interraction. I'ts a dimension of speaking the truth with love. Collusion with sincerity can be very tempting, but it's still collusion.
Timing matters, of course. There's a time to speak and a time to keep silent. The place matters as well.
If we have disagreements with friends which we know need resolving somehow or other, we choose our words carefully, look for the right time, and try to find the right place. People's religious affiliations are important to them. So, whether they are friends or not, it's a good idea to proceed with some caution. That doesn't mean you shouldn't proceed at all, just for the sake of peace and quiet. There's an art in effective confrontation over differences.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Unlike Mormonism Islam makes converts at the point of a gun.
You really need to get out more.
Yes. Didn't Christian missionaries order conversion at gunpoint in Latin America?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I had quite a few Mormon kids in my RE classes so we included their religion - I had to mug most of it up but I was very, very impressed in the hardships encountered by the early Mormons in their trek across the US - reads like Paul's missionary journeys and the stories of the martyrs.
I am also impressed by the sacrifice (though I know it's also an exciting rite of passage) of their young missionaries - I always try to engage in civil conversation when they knock on my door, though joking about offering them tea or coffee.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
We don't have much for Mormons here. But we do get white shirt, black pant, tie wearing "missionaries" from the USA ringing doorbells and trying to present their views. Except that it is always 2 young men looking rather like a stereotype of Jugend military than a mixed gender, all ages group, they could be Jehovah Witnesses. On hot days, we've had a habit of asking if they'd like a glass of water, and send them off after that. They never come in the winter so we don't have to ask if they need to warm up for a few minutes. A statement that "I'd rather not talk about that" is sufficient to shut down discussion of their religious beliefs. This is a generalisation, but they seem more friendly than the JWs. I suspect it is because the Mormons have travelled and the JWs are local.
Incidently, brief conversation on more than one occasional appears to indicate that they don't call themselves "Mormon". They use the term LDS, though using the term Mormon means that everyone understands whom we're talking about. Not sure if the term Mormon is simply not their preferred term or if there is something else about it. We're led to understand that it is actually growing quite quickly as a religion.
Is it Christian? I would think it is sort of a hybrid and combination with some local ideas. The larger issue is that they like to consider themselves Christian, unlike others, such as Jews and Muslims. I don't think TV series about men with 4 or 5 wives and 17 children help their cause well, even if this is a fringe element. It is about as helpful as narrow-minded avaricious fundamentalist televangelists. I'm not sure if these TV people are exactly Christian either.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Islam is not a monolith, it is incredibly diverse. What you say about 'Islam' is only true of particular Muslim groups - even in Bradford.
"What you say about the XYZ folk is only true of particular XYZ groups - even in Bradford."
This is the most common truism when someone criticizes Islam. But the fact there are different trees does not mean nothing meaningful can be said about the forest.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Mormonism received a fairly heavy duty makeover from the right-wing media in the US in order to make Mitt Romney palatable to conservative evangelicals as a Presidential candidates. 10 years ago most evangelicals would have said Mormons weren't Christians and that they wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a Christian. The second is too useful for the right wing machine to let go of so they went to work on the first.
Yeah, strange that. Personally I'd no sooner vote for a Mormon than I would a Scientologist, in other words, never.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
What I do not understand is:
On the one hand we say Mormons are not Christian but another religion (in German we'd call them "Neuoffenbarungsreligion" a "religion with new revelations" because of their 3 holy books apart from the Bible). Nothing wrong with having another religion per se, is there? Why should that be a reason for criticizing them? Let alone be polemical?
On the other hand we complain when they do mission work among our "flock".
But you can't eat your cake and have it. Only Christian churches seek agreements against "sheep-stealing", anybody else must have the right to seek to persuade others. So if they are another religion they can try and win over Christians to their own faith, don't they?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Mormonism received a fairly heavy duty makeover from the right-wing media in the US in order to make Mitt Romney palatable to conservative evangelicals as a Presidential candidates. 10 years ago most evangelicals would have said Mormons weren't Christians and that they wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a Christian. The second is too useful for the right wing machine to let go of so they went to work on the first.
Yeah, strange that. Personally I'd no sooner vote for a Mormon than I would a Scientologist, in other words, never.
The trouble with that stance is that people can apply it to any religion.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
They look more like 1960s IBM salesmen than what I assume you mean by "Jugend". And a little weird, sort of alien, you don't see people like them in real life.
Round here JWs come over as much more normal. Women more often than not, often black or both black and white, also typically an older and a younger person in each pair. They look far more like a random selection from local population than the Mormons do.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Mormonism received a fairly heavy duty makeover from the right-wing media in the US in order to make Mitt Romney palatable to conservative evangelicals as a Presidential candidates. 10 years ago most evangelicals would have said Mormons weren't Christians and that they wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a Christian. The second is too useful for the right wing machine to let go of so they went to work on the first.
Yeah, strange that. Personally I'd no sooner vote for a Mormon than I would a Scientologist, in other words, never.
The trouble with that stance is that people can apply it to any religion.
Of course.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
What I do not understand is:
On the one hand we say Mormons are not Christian but another religion... Nothing wrong with having another religion per se, is there? Why should that be a reason for criticizing them? Let alone be polemical?
On the other hand we complain when they do mission work among our "flock".
But you can't eat your cake and have it. Only Christian churches seek agreements against "sheep-stealing", anybody else must have the right to seek to persuade others. So if they are another religion they can try and win over Christians to their own faith, don't they?
I think (from the perspective of our side) it's a question of being evasive about religious differences.
Christians would be happy to treat the Mormons as "another religion". Unfortunately, to the extent that they don't advertise their unorthodoxy, they benefit from squeezing under the "Protestant umbrella" and saying "we're Christians too".
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
There seems to be some sort of tacit understanding among most of the clergy with whom I am familiar that it is unseemly to criticize other flavors of Christianity no matter how off-the-wall their teachings. This certainly seems to be the case with Mormonism, assorted types of fundamentalism and pentecostalism. I have had private conversations with several Lutheran clergy persons who have said that in their personal opinion Mormonism is a long way from orthodox Christianity but they have avoided saying so in a public forum.
On a recent Sunday our congregation professed belief in the Athanasian Creed.(Thank goodness we do that only once a year!) If one accepts that as a definitive understanding of orthodox Christianity then the Mormon teaching regarding the Trinity puts Mormonism outside of traditional Christianity.
I've read both criticisms and defenses of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and to my mind it seems to be an amalgam of late 18th and early 19th cent. beliefs that are entirely unsupported by modern historians and/or scientists;i.e. the native people of North America are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. Would it be unkind of me to point that out to any of the young men in white shirts and ties that I occasionally see knocking on doors in my neighborhood?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Having been the object of sustained and energetic conversion attempts (long story) some years ago, I was driven to actually look up a fair bit on Mormonism.
When they come around (and they do), I have no trouble politely but clearly calling them out on the nonsensical aspects of their religion-- the Book of Abraham totally undermines the claims of divine origin of their works. And we will not even get into church authorities and their pronouncements (e.g., that the US constitution is divinely inspired). The young (and very sincere) representatives get uneasy when you go offscript and doubly so when you are able to demonstrate that you actually know something about their stuff.
Their claims of authority are absolute. Their theology disallows Trinitarian thought and baptism and they cannot honestly expect orthodox trinitarian Christians to recognize their beliefs and sacraments as acceptable. That some try suggests to me that they either do not believe their own narratives, or that they are lacking in intellectual integrity. And I will not even touch the question of those trinitarian Christian churches and bishops (TEC???) accepting their baptisms.
While they are parallel to Muslims in basing their beliefs on additional scriptures, they do not yet have a body of art and poetry which attracts me. Still, I like to chat with them on Mormon traces in the Battlestar Galactica narrative.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
To what extent does this discussion apply equally well to "should Christians criticize Christian Scientists" or to "should Christians criticize Seventh-Day Adventists"?
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
I criticise everyone. Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, pagan, atheist, Scientologist, Belieber, Lutheran, whatevs.
Although I spend the most time criticizing Episcopalians, as that's the group I've hitched my theological pony to.
Of course, I don't criticise because I believe I have the ONE TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD AND ALL OF HER CREATION like the OP seems to think one needs to have an opinion on faith. I criticise because I'm testing to see what is good.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
To what extent does this discussion apply equally well to "should Christians criticize Christian Scientists" or to "should Christians criticize Seventh-Day Adventists"?
Probably to the same extent, assuming the teachings of Mrs. Eddy and Mrs. White are as heterodox as those of Mr. Smith.
But I think Mormonism makes a juicier target for the inquisitors, since it actually has a whole set of extra-biblical stories that it presents as on par with the Bible. Whereas Christian Science and SDAism present shadow-cabinet explanations of how everything is supposed to work, but for the most part leave the Bible itself unrivalled for authority.
That said, I do recall reading something somewhere about a trend toward deification of Mrs. Eddy among the Christian Scientists at one time. Still don't think they were outright adding books to the Bible, however.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Well said HCH. Barnabas62, I´m sure you´re right mate but I was responding to Mousethief. And yes Louise preempted (or presaged? or even presciented!) what I said and I would have been senile(r) to say what I said if Mousethief hadn´t said what they said in between.
Which looked nicely (and therefore can´t be, because this is Mousethief (sorry! what Mousethief said) we´re talking about here, well I am) like unintended irony.
On Friday evenings Christadelphians come and serve the poorest of Leicester, should I stop them from joing in the prayer groups?
One Mormon lady came once. I made her most welcome. Perhaps if I´d persecuted her she´d have come back?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
To what extent does this discussion apply equally well to "should Christians criticize Christian Scientists" or to "should Christians criticize Seventh-Day Adventists"?
Perhaps the reason for reticence in some cases is that although some groups have an unorthodox theology, their members' daily lives and church commitments seem very similar to everyone else's. If we're talking about seriously strange behaviour then yes, everyone piles on. But otherwise it can come across as uncharitable or tasteless to criticise, except within the pages of theological journals. The Mormons have gradually toned down their strange behaviour over the decades, even though their beliefs may remain exotic. This might be why the criticism has declined.
Re the SDAs, I have many of them in my extended family, and they'd be seriously shocked to be described as non-Christians. I understand vaguely that they used to be a problem because of the status accorded to Ellen G. White's writings. But didn't they formally clarify later that these writings were in no way on a level with the Bible? I don't know. I've been given some of the books but never been sufficiently interested to read them.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
To what extent does this discussion apply equally well to "should Christians criticize Christian Scientists" or to "should Christians criticize Seventh-Day Adventists"?
Well, Adventists are recognizably Christian despite their Sabbatarian peculiarities. As far as Christian Scientists go, I'm always tempted to whip out my Linda Richman imitation and say, "I'll give you a topic : Christian Science is neither Christian nor scientific. Discuss."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
What I do not understand is:
On the one hand we say Mormons are not Christian but another religion (in German we'd call them "Neuoffenbarungsreligion" a "religion with new revelations" because of their 3 holy books apart from the Bible). Nothing wrong with having another religion per se, is there?
Only when they claim to be a subset of Christianity. Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Baha'is don't claim to be Christian.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...they do not yet have a body of art and poetry which attracts me.
Does Napoleon Dynamite count?
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
Augustine, While the Mormons don't seem to created any artistic or poetic masterpieces, they do seem to be very much interested in dance....which strikes me as very odd.
As the recent US Presidential Elections have demonstrated, at least some Mormons also excel in historical fiction.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...they do not yet have a body of art and poetry which attracts me.
Does Napoleon Dynamite count?
Or Orson Scott Card, if you happen to like SF.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
While the Mormons don't seem to created any artistic or poetic masterpieces
Whether it qualifies as "masterpiece" is another question, but I would say that their temple architecture is quite distinctive.
They seem to have a few standard genres in use, but even then, all manage to look rather distinct from other buildings in that style, and similar to each other.
The San Diego Temple
I mean, I guess it's neo-Gothic, in a somewhat overworked, excessively ornate sort of way. Like it or dislike it, it does cut it's own path.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I did note that I referred to artistic expression which attracted me-- it may be that the context in which things were presented to me may not have helped.
And in any case one should perhaps pay some attention to Anthony Trollope's comment about Mormons-- that he would not judge a man for being a Mormon, but he would if he were a bad one.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Re artistic expression, considering how new they are, say compared to the "big" religions, I'd say the Mormons have a created a lot of valuable things. The Mormon tabernacle choir is well-known for being beautiful too.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
Their temple architecture is certainly striking. The temple in DC makes a very distinct addition to the skyline. Too bad I will never be permitted to see the interior.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
The Mormons are big in my town and, interestingly enough, not particularly Caucasian.
I even work with a couple of Mormons. They remind me of old-fashioned Puritans - very thrifty, family-orientated, assiduously avoid any talk that is off-colour, and don't make too many jokes.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Or Orson Scott Card, if you happen to like SF.
Other Mormon genre writers: Tracy Hickman, Stephanie Meyer, Brandon Sanderson. That's just off the top of my head. Hickman and Meyer may not have the critical acclaim but they're certainly popular.
I suspect that Mormon theology lends itself to an unironic good vs evil fantasy in a way that Christian/Jewish/Islamic theology doesn't. Compare the most famous Christian fantasy fiction. If you read the Narnia books as a tale of the struggle between the good guys and the bad guys you'll be intensely bored. And Lord of the Rings can be read as an ironic deconstruction of the standard three volume fantasy quest saga.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Fr Weber. You can be as wrong as you like from now on: Orson Scott Card is a damn fine writer.
Mousethief. There are all sorts of appalling us that are creedal Christians.
So it´s OK to be a worse than useless evil son-of-a-bitch and right than good and wrong.
OKayyyyyyyyyyy.
What´s happened to you man? Ohhhhh. Nothing.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Their temple architecture is certainly striking. The temple in DC makes a very distinct addition to the skyline. Too bad I will never be permitted to see the interior.
I think that Stalin gothic works better with that approach. There are partial tours of the interior and, should there be a temple opening up near you, they usually hold complete pre-consecration tours.
I have only read about 4 of Orson Scott Card's books and I think he is uneven-- as I noted above, Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism offer some really interesting parallels. Glen Larson, a writer of the original series, was LDS, but I think that the newer series dealt with Mormon themes far better. And the two missionaries whom I closeted for two hours in May quite agree with me and one of them had pretty well memorized the scripts of the second series. They did not want to talk about how plural marriage for women with several husbands seemed more practical to me.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Fr Weber. You can be as wrong as you like from now on: Orson Scott Card is a damn fine writer.
Mousethief. There are all sorts of appalling us that are creedal Christians.
So it´s OK to be a worse than useless evil son-of-a-bitch and right than good and wrong.
OKayyyyyyyyyyy.
What´s happened to you man? Ohhhhh. Nothing.
I'm wondering if you posted this on the wrong thread?
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
Mormons are not big in Australia, as far as I can tell. I have never known any personally, or heard of any undertaking public office. I don't know where they meet, in my rural part of Oz, if anywhere. As a minister, I have never talked about them with other church folk. I have met a couple of evangelists door knocking, maybe, or am I thinking of JWs?
But then, that is true really of other religious groups... Although I did meet two Jewish folk 3 years ago....
Homogenous region really.
But even when I lived in the city...
I fid it fascinating to read of the brouhaha about it all in other countries.
I guess I don't think of them as Christian, and I don't think any of my local clergy would either. Tat seems to be the general sweep of opinion here.
[ 27. July 2013, 00:27: Message edited by: Rowen ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I have met a couple of evangelists door knocking, maybe, or am I thinking of JWs?
At least in the places I've lived(Canada and Korea), Mormon missionaries tend to be from North America, usually Utah but also California, Idaho, and western Canada. They do team up with locals, but there's usually at least one North American in tow.
If the people you met were Australian, my guess would be that they were JWs. The one foreign JW door-knocker I know in Korea is, coincidenatally, Australian, but he's married to a Korean. Other than that, they've all been Korean.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I grew up in Mormon country. In my high school senior class, there were only five of us that were not Mormon. Consequently, there was a lot of pressure on us to become one of them.
I think we were very polemical against the Mormons at the time, as a way of distinguishing us from them.
There are still things that get to me about the Mormon faith. For instance, the Twilight Series is really fictionalized Mormon theology.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/mormon-influence-imagery_n_623487.html
I just would not call the Mormon faith a Christian faith, myself. I think when Mormon missionaries do try to influence our young people or friends, we have to make distinctions between what they believe and what mainstream Christians believe.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Well any extracanonical mandatory distinctive, i.e. hostile exclusion makes a Neuoffenbarungsreligion.
Therefore the Roman Catholic Church (ecclesiae, cults) is one for a big start. Followed by Islam then the Orthodox Church in time. Then the Reformed Church.
Are there any of us that aren´t neuoffenbarungsreligiösen?
I certainly am as I´ve been infected with the postmodern viral meme and that takes me in to extracanonical territory on the trajectory of the New Testament I now can´t not see. Hence my social liberalism on (DH alert! DH alert!) sexuality feeding back in to my ecclesiology.
And mousethief, you, as ever, are - most graciously it has to be said in the face of my passive ... counter hostility - right, but I, as ever, am justified in blurring the threads.
And senile.
[ 27. July 2013, 06:51: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
´ang on a bleedin´ minute. Wot other thread?! I thought you must be right mousethief, as you´re never wrong, so I thought it must be the Heresy thread. Fool that I am for not checking.
Your graciousness stands, but so does the essence behind my passive aggression to your formal hostility:
Who are we religious hypocrites to exclude?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
I think an important diasctintion needs to made here. Comparing Christianity, Islam, Judaism and probably a few others as well, to Mormanism isn't quite fair. For starters, Mormanism, in its establishment, documents and central claims lacks historicity. I think a comparison to Scientology is much more apt.
K.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
For instance, the Twilight Series is really fictionalized Mormon theology.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/mormon-influence-imagery_n_623487.html
I just would not call the Mormon faith a Christian faith, myself. I think when Mormon missionaries do try to influence our young people or friends, we have to make distinctions between what they believe and what mainstream Christians believe.
Fascinating article - thanks for the link.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I think an important diasctintion needs to made here. Comparing Christianity, Islam, Judaism and probably a few others as well, to Mormanism isn't quite fair. For starters, Mormanism, in its establishment, documents and central claims lacks historicity. I think a comparison to Scientology is much more apt.
K.
The comparison with Islam is slightly more viable, given that the sacred texts are based on the testimony of a single person, who was as at least apparently convinced of his message. Scientology is a rather different kettle of fish.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who are we religious hypocrites to exclude?
I'm not sure what you mean by "exclude." It's not like Christianity is this fun circus with clowns and carnival rides and taffy apples that we're keeping them out of because we're hypocritical meanies. It's a body of people with a common understanding of who God is.
The Mormon understanding of who God is is completely different from the Christian understanding. And in no small way: their "god" is created (and indeed somewhere in the middle of a long line of "gods" fathered by a previous god and fathering subsequent gods). Ours is the uncreated creator of all that is. That's not some small difference; that's huge. From a Christian understanding, their "god" isn't God. They don't worship the same deity we do. Mormonism is not Christian.
This wouldn't be a problem if not for one thing: they claim their church *IS* Christian, and they obscure the nature of their "god" from would-be converts, making out like it is our God. "We're just like Methodists and Presbyterians except we have a new Testament of Jesus Christ," they will say. But they're not. That's dishonest.
There are many admirable and many objectionable things about Mormonism other than their concept of God. But their concept of God puts them outside the Christian tent.
[ 27. July 2013, 18:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I should have clarified one thing further: "this wouldn't be a problem."
By this I mean there are plenty of non-Christian religions, and our response to them is different from our response to Mormonism. Muslims don't claim to be Christians. Jews don't pretend to be Christians. Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Baha'is don't claim to be Christians. Mormons do.
[ 27. July 2013, 19:01: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
mousethief, you are always, always right, it´s cool, we coo-el. So what? What difference does a right belief make? Especially when so many people with right ones have other hostile ones?
To mix threads, should we smack them in the mouth?
They same most analogous not to Muslims or Scientologists but to Samaritans to me.
And how did Jesus deal with them?
That´s the only example I´m interested in following.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Why do so many Christians spend more time criticising others than they do proclaiming and celebrating what they do believe.
We don't get much contact with LDS here, but my approach would be much the same as I deal with Muslims: Whilst acknowledging there is much we disagree on, concentrate on
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
oops.
...concentrate on what we have in common.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
oops.
...concentrate on what we have in common.
Much as we do (or should be doing) with Muslims and Jews. This doesn't have to be done, and probably couldn't easily be done, at an organized church level-- but simply as individual Xns/Jews/Mormons/Muslims working together on common humanitarian efforts. There's plenty of food banks which need help, plenty of women's shelters which could use a hand, plenty of ex-prisoners who need a break.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The thing of it is Mormons are pretty exclusive when it comes social services. They have an active aid society for Mormons, but not necessarily for gentles (their description of non Mormons).
In our community churches are banning together to do a Family Promise program--where we house homeless families to help them transition into jobs and permanent housing. We invited the LDS to become a sponsoring church, but the church headquarters in Salt Lake said no. Still it has agreed to provide some sopport though it is not being encouraged by their higher powers.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who are we religious hypocrites to exclude?
I struggle how we have got to excluding what we are talking about is drawing attention to obvious differences. (It's the usual argument of course - bleating about exclusion - when what we are actually talking about is a difference over essentials. Since we believe ourselves to be right, that makes those who differ fro us wrong).
We're not excluding, simply pointing out the obvious differences which mean we have little of core belief in common - and that matters.
It could also be that we are
1. Human
2. Right
[ 28. July 2013, 06:41: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Jesus was the only one who managed that. Because He was good.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
BWS--
What's your problem with the Amish? Theologically, they're Anabaptist and (IIRC) Calvinist. Much of that I disagree with, but they're hardly the only ones with that theology.
My problems with them are more cultural: limitations on women; sending their young people out to try on the wider world, without preparation; whether radical simplicity is a goal or a means; and needing a wider gene pool. (Problems with in-breeding, though outsiders who marry in do bring new genes.)
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
IF I were going to criticize Mormons I'd make sure the family that lives across the street didn't know I was doing it cause when some 'society ending event' occurs I know which door I'm knocking on begging for food first.
(I have a signed copy of this book... all I had to do was call in to his radio talk show and mention the New Madrid fault to get him going on for about 10 minutes... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
but the problem as I see it as all too much of what these types talk about has a smell of 'this makes pretty good sense and if you weren't so damn uppity you'd acknowledge it' about it. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
)
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
BWS-- What's your problem with the Amish?
Stated simply, the Amish embolden atheists like no other Christian denomination.
They are the Christian version of the "Essenes". They are a punch line of late-night talk shows and fodder for 20/20-Dateline "rescue from religion" stories.
Life (i.e. the everyday struggle with evil) isn't as "ideal" as they would like, so rather than joining with other Christians against "Rome", they choose to go hang out in the "wilderness" and create their own "Jerusalem Temple" while they wait for God to restore everything. (They consider the belly of Jonah's whale to be a nice place to set up camp, if it means avoiding dealing with Ninevah...)
Fundamentalism flourishes in that kind of environment, and when the Essenes of history went into battle in 70AD, they proved to be pretty useless.
(It's significant to me that nothing in the NT mentions Jesus or the early church having anything to do with the Qumran community.)
[ 28. July 2013, 12:30: Message edited by: BWSmith ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
What are we talking about, the Mormons or the Amish? Seems to me we should stay on topic.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Indeed, we are not talking about the makers of dairy products in general but about cheesemakers.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The thing of it is Mormons are pretty exclusive when it comes social services. They have an active aid society for Mormons, but not necessarily for gentles (their description of non Mormons).
In our community churches are banning together to do a Family Promise program--where we house homeless families to help them transition into jobs and permanent housing. We invited the LDS to become a sponsoring church, but the church headquarters in Salt Lake said no. Still it has agreed to provide some sopport though it is not being encouraged by their higher powers.
This an excellent example of the difficulties and possibilities of doing service work with Mormons. They have a strong ethos of taking-care-of-our-own and I know of several examples where this has worked wonderfully with younger people in difficult home situations. As I mentioned, such cooperation is likely not possible at an organized level, but more informally, I think that a great deal can be achieved. While those of us who love structural responses might be frustrated, at least those needing help can get some in the interim.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Speaking of Mormon temples, there was a photo tour book produced before the Salt Lake City building was consecrated in 1890; it's the only picture series available of the interior. With the advent of the internet it's become much more available.
Some would describe it as interesting, others as tending towards kitsch. I don't believe the interior has changed much, if at all, in the intervening century.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
There are still things that get to me about the Mormon faith. For instance, the Twilight Series is really fictionalized Mormon theology.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/mormon-influence-imagery_n_623487.html
I didn't find everything in that article entirely convincing. Some of the supposed similarities seemed to be on pretty general points, eg. someone in the movie talked about having an abortion, Mormons allow abortion in some instances. Lots of movies talk about abortion, and lots of religions have partial allowances for it. Some of it seemed on firmer ground though.
Another movie that critics connected to Mormonism was Knowing, a somewhat underrated(IMO) apocalyptic sci-fi story from a few years back. Apparently, its usage of the Edenic Tree to symbolize something positive(rather than just the Fall) is akin to Mormon usage. I think the Mormons might have lifted that motif from Freemasonry, but don't quote me on that.
The image
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
Some folk seem to think that Mormons are to be faulted for "pretending" to be Christian. Why? They genuinely think themselves Christian and have every right to present that viewpoint, even if nobody agrees with them. It is our job to educate our co-religionists about the basics of our faith so they can recognise why the Mormons' claim is wrong.
It seems that recently Mormons have begun to stress the generally Christian elements in their doctrine more. That applies to their self-presentation to the outside. But is also seems to hold for their inner life. It is not just propaganda. I have spoken to many Mormons and they all say they never heard the stuff about God living with wife and son on the planet Kolob in the galaxy Kokaubeam in church. Apparently in practice this is not relevant to their teaching - so I well believe that inside their Church they feel Christian. An illusion born from ignorance about our faith, I think, but a genuine one.
I recently heard a Mormon analyse the docrine of trinity going through church history from the earliest times. He tried to reconcile it with Mormonism. Unsuccessfully imo (I told him so), but he seemed genuinely interested in understanding Christian doctrine. That is rare among Mormons and an effort I gave him credit for. It was a German FAIR conference.
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
For starters, Mormanism, in its establishment, documents and central claims lacks historicity. K.
It is a common assumption in our culture that faiths are to be taken more seriously if they are old and/or numerically strong.
But if you think about it, neither age nor numbers tell you anything about the veracity or quality of a persuasion, idea, thought or religion, does it?
If nothing else, simply remembering the start of Christianity should give you pause for thought. It was tiny and brand new once.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This wouldn't be a problem if not for one thing: they claim their church *IS* Christian, and they obscure the nature of their "god" from would-be converts, making out like it is our God. "We're just like Methodists and Presbyterians except we have a new Testament of Jesus Christ," they will say. But they're not. That's dishonest.
There are many admirable and many objectionable things about Mormonism other than their concept of God. But their concept of God puts them outside the Christian tent. [/QB]
That also applies to some forms of liberal protestantism...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I think an important diasctintion needs to made here. Comparing Christianity, Islam, Judaism and probably a few others as well, to Mormanism isn't quite fair. For starters, Mormanism, in its establishment, documents and central claims lacks historicity. I think a comparison to Scientology is much more apt.
K.
The comparison with Islam is slightly more viable, given that the sacred texts are based on the testimony of a single person, who was as at least apparently convinced of his message. Scientology is a rather different kettle of fish.
Point taken. I was thinking about the role of invention. In short, the Book of Mormon was clearly a fake and (at least partial) forgery right from the start.
K.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This wouldn't be a problem if not for one thing: they claim their church *IS* Christian, and they obscure the nature of their "god" from would-be converts, making out like it is our God. "We're just like Methodists and Presbyterians except we have a new Testament of Jesus Christ," they will say. But they're not. That's dishonest.
There are many admirable and many objectionable things about Mormonism other than their concept of God. But their concept of God puts them outside the Christian tent.
That also applies to some forms of liberal protestantism...
True. I thought it was grossly dishonest of Spong to pretend he was a Christian.
[ 28. July 2013, 23:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
The trouble with Mormonism is that you are expected to take the Book of Mormon literally, and it is blatantly non-historical. Much of the Bible is non-historical as well but plenty of Christians don't take it literally.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Sylvander wrote:
quote:
I have spoken to many Mormons and they all say they never heard the stuff about God living with wife and son on the planet Kolob in the galaxy Kokaubeam in church. Apparently in practice this is not relevant to their teaching - so I well believe that inside their Church they feel Christian. An illusion born from ignorance about our faith, I think, but a genuine one.
I once read a Jack Chick comic in which it was speculated(somewhat uncharacteristically for Chick, who tends more toward absolute certainty) that the passageway to heaven lies behind some star in a distant galaxy.
Now, granted, Chick is a bit of an outlier, but I'd be willing to bet that there are LOTS of people in mainstream demoninations who, on a personal level, subscribe(if only be default) to some idea of God being a guy sitting on a throne in heaven, accesable to humans via space and time. Which comes pretty close to the Mormon idea of God as a created being up on Kolob.
This is kind of the reverse of your Mormon congregants, who believe in the traditional mainstream idea of God, unaware that they worship in a church that teaches the sci-fi idea of God on another planet. But still, if we're going to say(as I think most of us would) that the untutored Presbyterian who thinks God is up somewhere behind the dog star can still be considered a Christian, do we set the bar higher for orthodox Mormons who follow the teaching about Kolob?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
What are we talking about, the Mormons or the Amish? Seems to me we should stay on topic.
Because BWS mentioned them upthread.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
About the Amish, they seem to be very weird but their theology is not very different then what you get in average baptist churches. They´re certainly trinitarians. Here in South America there are the Mennonites, which are kind of cousins of the Amish. Those who live in rural areas tend to be very strict, and a small minority behaves exactly like the Amish. But those who live in big cities have become pretty much mainstream evangelicals.
Most Mormons I´ve talked too seemed to be monotheistic in their tone, but I´ve never engaged in serious religious discussion with any. I suppose the most weird aspects of their doctrine is only known to the more hardcore Mormons.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
A member of one particular Christian group can call members of another group "Christian" as well, without having to agree with their level of orthodoxy. From my catholic (or anglican) perspective there are others who self-identify as Christian and I am perfectly willing to go along with that, even though I may consider their expression of Christianity very heterodox indeed. It's not just "small o" orthodox Christians that get to be called Christians, or get to decide who can be called Christian IMHO.
So if the Mormons think of themselves as Christians, that's OK by me. Just not my particular cup of tea.
I don't think it's fair to equate Mormonism with Scientology. From everything I have seen of Scientology it seems to me to be none other than an on-going scam. (I tend to be sympathetic to the German government's view of Scientology.) However dodgy the 19th century beginnings of Mormonism probably were, mainstream Mormonism has grown into a sufficiently large group that they aren't being mentally enslaved as cult members (See my above post on Mormon supporters of Obama). It is important to distinguish mainstream Mormonism from small cultic offshoots like Warren Jeff's group.
Re Mormon additions to the canon of scripture, in their services, the Christian Scientist's read portions of Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Keys to the Scripture -- whether they consider the Eddy work to be the canonical equivalent of the Christian Bible, I don't know. And some Christian groups treat Patristic writings as being as important to their doctrines as the Bible. Some might call that adding to the canon of scripture.
Re distinctive contributions to the world of religious art and architecture, what contributions has Pentecostalism made? (Not a criticism of Pentecostalism, as I don't think a groups contributions in this area have any bearing on their legitimacy as a religious group -- Although now as I think of it, they have made contributions in the area of religious music, I'd say.)
[ 29. July 2013, 03:13: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The trouble with Mormonism is that you are expected to take the Book of Mormon literally, and it is blatantly non-historical. Much of the Bible is non-historical as well but plenty of Christians don't take it literally.
But more than a few Christians do, particularly in the U.S. -- and that includes some Christian denominations that insist on it. Creationism is one of the manifestations of this.
[ 29. July 2013, 03:20: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
BWS-- What's your problem with the Amish?
Stated simply, the Amish embolden atheists like no other Christian denomination.
???? Have you ever heard an atheist target them? I haven't. IME, they general go after traditional Christian beliefs, the Catholic church, and right-wing American Christians. And hypocrites.
quote:
They are the Christian version of the "Essenes". They are a punch line of late-night talk shows and fodder for 20/20-Dateline "rescue from religion" stories.
Ok, you do know that there's a long history of all kinds of Christian communities? Monastic communities, but lots of others.
AFAIK, the Amish don't claim any kind of esoteric spiritual knowledge, whereas the Essenes did.
Late-night TV talk shows make fun of EVERYBODY in the news, more or less.
The TV news magazine coverage of the Amish that I've seen has either been basic cultural info, or about the dangers of the rumsprina ("running around") year that Amish teens get in the outside world to decide which way they want to live. They're in a world they're not prepared for, and faced with the dangers of sex, STDs, substance abuse, etc. Then they have to decide which world to live in. They can't go back and forth.
And those same news magazines spend much more time on other religious communities and issues.
quote:
Life (i.e. the everyday struggle with evil) isn't as "ideal" as they would like, so rather than joining with other Christians against "Rome", they choose to go hang out in the "wilderness" and create their own "Jerusalem Temple" while they wait for God to restore everything. (They consider the belly of Jonah's whale to be a nice place to set up camp, if it means avoiding dealing with Ninevah...)
Where are you getting all this?? They fled religious persecution in Europe, and religious refugees often live in somewhat separatist communities.
You sound like you really *loathe* them.
quote:
Fundamentalism flourishes in that kind o
f environment, and when the Essenes of history went into battle in 70AD, they proved to be pretty useless.
(It's significant to me that nothing in the NT mentions Jesus or the early church having anything to do with the Qumran community.)
The Essenes had a different set of beliefs than the early Christians. While IIRC there were some parallels and belief in some kind of prophet of light, it didn't seem to *necessarily* refer to Jesus.
Fundamentalism flourishes in all sorts of environments, about all sorts of beliefs--religious, secular, scientific, music, fashion, nationalism...
Whatever their flaws, the Amish aren't doing any systematic recruiting. They just want to live their lives and their faith.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Gorpo wrote:
quote:
I suppose the most weird aspects of their doctrine is only known to the more hardcore Mormons.
Well, assuming by "weird" you mean "unorthodox", I think stuff like Jesus Visiting The Americas and Baptism Of The Dead are pretty well known among the Mormon rank and file.
The stuff about Kolob, maybe not so much. I'm not sure how much they know about God being married and having children.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gorpo wrote:
... Baptism Of The Dead are pretty well known among the Mormon rank and file.
And among the Bible of course :-)
1 Cor 15:29
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gorpo wrote:
quote:
I suppose the most weird aspects of their doctrine is only known to the more hardcore Mormons.
Well, assuming by "weird" you mean "unorthodox", I think stuff like Jesus Visiting The Americas and Baptism Of The Dead are pretty well known among the Mormon rank and file.
The stuff about Kolob, maybe not so much. I'm not sure how much they know about God being married and having children.
The missionary training used to (I don't know if it still does) provide them with scripts to pursue if these questions were raised. I suppose that the missionary cohort could be called hard-core, but it is pretty sizeable and pretty well all leadership is drawn from it.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Stated simply, the Amish embolden atheists like no other Christian denomination.
???? Have you ever heard an atheist target them? I haven't.
I didn't say that they "targeted" Amish. The Amish embolden atheists in their conviction that all Christianity (including mainstream Christianity) is fundamentally anti-modern.
From their point of view, the Amish are following Christianity to its logical conclusions: reject modernity, believe outdated ideas, live outdated lives. (Therefore, it's a good thing to be an atheist and be free from all that...)
This relates back to my original topic of Mormonism: If something as laughably false as Mormonism can gain millions of adherents, then atheists need not believe that mainstream Christianity necessarily has any core truth that justifies their billions of believers. Both Mormonism and the Amish provide templates for the deconstruction and delegitimation of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
They are the Christian version of the "Essenes". They are a punch line of late-night talk shows and fodder for 20/20-Dateline "rescue from religion" stories.
AFAIK, the Amish don't claim any kind of esoteric spiritual knowledge, whereas the Essenes did.
Of course they "aren't Essenes". They are 'like' the Essenes in their willingness to separate themselves from the real problems of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Late-night TV talk shows make fun of EVERYBODY in the news, more or less.
Not exactly. You will never hear a Leno or Letterman explicitly insult mainstream Christian beliefs. (The advertisers would bolt.) However, they are more than happy to pick on fringe groups, and what the secularist comedy writers say about the Amish is what they would like to say (but can't) about the rest of us.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Life (i.e. the everyday struggle with evil) isn't as "ideal" as they would like, so rather than joining with other Christians against "Rome", they choose to go hang out in the "wilderness" and create their own "Jerusalem Temple" while they wait for God to restore everything. (They consider the belly of Jonah's whale to be a nice place to set up camp, if it means avoiding dealing with Ninevah...)
Where are you getting all this?? They fled religious persecution in Europe, and religious refugees often live in somewhat separatist communities.
I am literally describing the historical situation of the Essenes (in such a way that invites comparison with the motivations of the Amish).
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Whatever their flaws, the Amish aren't doing any systematic recruiting. They just want to live their lives and their faith.
Not true - living our lives and our faith is what us mainstream Christians are doing. The Amish are living under a deliberate judgmental separation from the rest of us, making the symbolic statement to the world that our lives are "evil".
Christianity as a whole would be better off if these people would "return" to the modern world and focus their energies on helping us all fight the sin in the world, rather than fighting the world itself.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The Amish are just early modern. Evangelicals are as modern as it gets. Modern is the problem. So atheists are right.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
BWSmith: quote:
Christianity as a whole would be better off if these people would "return" to the modern world and focus their energies on helping us all fight the sin in the world, rather than fighting the world itself.
Which reminds me: I really dislike the whole "Not of this World" craze. Yeah, I know it's biblical but so is "The world is his and he made it, and his hands prepared the dry land". Me, I'm trying to work in the world. The Amish may do as they please. I believe the Godhead makes use of us as he finds us.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Weird. As far as I can remember I have never in my life seen or heard anyione say anythign bad about the Amish or Mennonites at all before this thread. What little media representation they have in this country is overwhelmingly posiitive. (And it is very little) The few Americans I iknow who have lived in Amish-inhabited parts of the country mostly seem to rather like living around them. There reputation, insofar as they have one at all here, is probably that they are mostly harmless and rather quant.
The Christians we love to hate collectively are American-style TV evangelists. They are the poster children for atheists. They probably do almost as much harm to the progress of Christianity as suicide bombers do for the progress of Islam. Basically they put people off in droves. But not Amish. I suspect that if all American evangelicals lived like Amish, Christianity would probably be a lot less unpopular.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
My experience with the local Amish community has led me to wonder if they worship CHrist as much as they do Amish culture. They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort arguing about the length of hem, the color of a buggy, whether or not zippers are acceptable, and who is and who isn't going directly to hell. I know it's an entirely different mindset but I do not understand how it is more pleasing to God to impersonate 16th cent. German/Swiss farmers than it is to live out one's faith in this world at this time.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Living in a closed community offers its own problems as any monk or nun will tell you, like having to put up with peoples annoying little habits, for a start. Learning to live with such things without feeling any animosity towards your brother is just as difficult in such a community as it is in the wider world. In that sense it is not an escape. Personally I've always found something quite attractive in such a life, even if I haven't opted for it.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Weird. As far as I can remember I have never in my life seen or heard anyione say anythign bad about the Amish or Mennonites at all before this thread. What little media representation they have in this country is overwhelmingly posiitive. (And it is very little) The few Americans I iknow who have lived in Amish-inhabited parts of the country mostly seem to rather like living around them. There reputation, insofar as they have one at all here, is probably that they are mostly harmless and rather quant.
The Christians we love to hate collectively are American-style TV evangelists. They are the poster children for atheists. They probably do almost as much harm to the progress of Christianity as suicide bombers do for the progress of Islam. Basically they put people off in droves. But not Amish. I suspect that if all American evangelicals lived like Amish, Christianity would probably be a lot less unpopular.
Yes, I'd go along with this. Humour about the Amish tends to be along the lines of poking gentle fun(eg. the teen-comedy Sex Drive, where the main Amish character is shown as kind, helpful, but a little passive-aggressive).
And I think in Witness they were generally shown as positive, weren't they? In general, there's nothing like the roasting that TV evangelists get being directed at the Amish.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And I think in Witness they were generally shown as positive, weren't they?
Generally postive? And the rest! It was practically a recruiting film. Or would be if they recruited. The barn-raising scene almost made you want to hand in your notice and escape to the country there and then.
Or jump back forty years or more to the the rather wonderful Powell and Pressburger (and Vaughan Williams, and David Lean) film 49th parallel which is a sort of Canadian Tourist Board meets the Anti-Nazi League propaganda film which has a section set in a Hutterite community. And makes it look rather glorious.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Or jump back forty years or more to the the rather wonderful Powell and Pressburger (and Vaughan Williams, and David Lean) film 49th parallel which is a sort of Canadian Tourist Board meets the Anti-Nazi League propaganda film which has a section set in a Hutterite community. And makes it look rather glorious.
--------------------
Thanks for the film recomm.
For the record, though, Hutterites in Canada were suject to a lot of discrimination, especially in my home province of Alberta. Interestingly, though, it was a Social Credit government(some kiwis might know what I'm talking about), heany with fundamentalist Christian influence, which did the worst against them. These guys were definitely NOT the 1940s equivalent of Letterman-loving secular liberals.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re "Witness":
Oh, yes, it was both Amish-positive and wonderful. I loved the barn-raising, too. I've always wanted to do something like that.
(Tangentially: Harrison Ford, who had the male lead, had actually worked as a carpenter, between film gigs. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
Expanding the tangent: Harrison Ford had been hired by George Lukas to do carpentry work at Lukas' home when Lukas hired him for the tiny part in American Graffiti which lead to his star-making role as Han Solo in Star Wars. The force was with him!
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
My experience with the local Amish community has led me to wonder if they worship Christ as much as they do Amish culture.
ORGANMEISTER hits the nail on the head here.
(I'm always surprised at the number of Christians who praise the lifestyle of the Amish, but aren't willing to become Amish themselves, or let their kids join in.)
From the 19th-century on, westerners have delighted in "dabbling" in bits and pieces of exotic cultures for our own entertainment. Hence, it is almost a knee-jerk reaction that when one considers the Amish, the instinct is to treat them like Navajos selling trinkets on the reservation: "respect their cultural tradition" by not taking it (or them) too seriously. Reduce them to something less than human, take your souvenir photos (which they don't allow), have a good laugh, and drive home...
But the Amish are not some exotic tribe of natives to be gawked at, nor admirable practitioners of some highly-disciplined diet/exercise program. They are a Christian sect of people like you and me that are continually enacting a worldview that pronounces judgment on the rest of us Christians. They are betting their collective lives on the notion that we are unrepentant sinners by virtue of our technology.
It is our responsibility as their Christian brothers to take that worldview seriously, evaluate our stance on it, and offer judgment in return (if any).
Once we choose to take off the tourist caps and consider them as fellow Christians, the reality is not particularly admirable. The Amish are, as ORGANMEISTER said, obsessed with their own anti-modernity, having made a cultural idol of it in the same way that the Judaizers of Paul's day treated circumcision, the Sabbath, and the food laws.
And (getting back to the original topic), the Amish embolden atheists with their anti-modernity in the same way that the Mormons embolden atheists with their anti-historical reason.
Some Christians argue that "radical Islam is the real Islam", that is, all muslims would think like the terrorists if they were only stripped of their need to compromise with the west and were free to follow the Quran. Likewise, atheists can comfort themselves in the notion that "Mormons and Amish are the real Christians", in that the pursuit of Christianity in its purest form takes you straight out of Enlightenment rationalism and into something medieval and oppressive...
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
But the Amish do have technology--it's just that it's frozen at the level of the 16th century.
It's not clear to me why they believe that the internal combustion engine is a more perilous invention than the wheel, but clearly they do.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Why can´t we say God bless them? Why can´t we acknowledge their strengths? The points they have? I´d certainly engage with any exclusion on their part, any hostility, as I do all those here who exclude me in formal hostility. And bless them in that.
I mean, what would Jesus do?
What will He do with Muslims and atheists and Hindus and animists? In the rest of this century, this millenium?
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I´d certainly engage with any exclusion on their part, any hostility, as I do all those here who exclude me in formal hostility...I mean, what would Jesus do?
Well, did Jesus engage in any hostility with the Pharisees and Sadducees? (If so, how can we justify never being hostile to anyone?)
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What will He do with Muslims and atheists and Hindus and animists? In the rest of this century, this millenium?
Well, if the Old Testament covenants are any indication, he will destroy them and exalt us. (Or maybe destroy them and us and exalt the Jews...)
But if the New Testament parables are any indication (Prodigal Son, "last shall be first"), he'll exalt them if they show basic repentance and punish us if we grumble about it. :-)
Ultimately, God's going to do whatever He wants to with people, and he can judge them in ways that we cannot see. The best we can do is try to be as faithful as possible to our perception of what Jesus wants us to do, and hope that God loves us enough to reward us with eternal life...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But the Amish do have technology--it's just that it's frozen at the level of the 16th century.
It's not clear to me why they believe that the internal combustion engine is a more perilous invention than the wheel, but clearly they do.
I thought that this was perhaps an oversimplification so found this article.
Amish and technology
I'd seen gadgets at use in fields in film, and in on programme, they actually had a washing machine - I'd been thinking that men's equipment was OK, but things to make women's lives easier, not, but this was therefore wrong.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
My experience with the local Amish community has led me to wonder if they worship Christ as much as they do Amish culture.
I can't speak to your experience, but I spent about two decades doing anthropological research with the Amish (including living with and worshiping with them). I do not believe that they worship their own culture over that of their Christian faith.
The logic of their practice is (in a nutshell) that anything that may act to provide temptation to weaken faith should be avoided. Since they have a very strong communal sense of faith, this would include those things that might act to weaken community. And what those temptations are may differ from church district to church district. The Amish are more diverse than people know.
sabine
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
RE: Fr. Weber; The local Amish do use technology selectively. The do use electricity as long as it is not received from the grid. They use lots of batteries. I frequent a local farmer's market which numbers quite a few Amish among their vendors. The use handheld calculators and cell phones. They also use electric cash registers which are powered by automobile batteries. As I understand it, using electricity from the grid would make them dependent on the larger society for power. Of course, using batteries makes them dependent on the Energizer Bunny!
The best explanation of Amish culture I've found is "The Riddle of Amish Culture" by Donald Kraybill, professor of Anabaptist studies at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA. He's made several appearances on CNN in recent months commenting on the cable TV series "Amish Mafia". As I said, it's a totally different mindset and Kraybill does a good job trying to explain it.
All of this reminds me of a very orthodox Jewish acquaintance who was telling me that his Rabbi decreed that it was OK to use a timing device to turn on electricity during the sabbath but it was not OK to use motion sensors to accomplish the same thing. It seems that motion sensors imply some sort of voluntary action which is not permitted.
To my mind all the above seems like some sort of legalistic game but...................
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Thank you sabine. What a great thing to have done. You have surely blessed them as they have you. Just as God intended in Abraham and His Seed.
Bee Dubbyer. Bless.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Ultimately, God's going to do whatever He wants to with people, and he can judge them in ways that we cannot see. The best we can do is try to be as faithful as possible to our perception of what Jesus wants us to do, and hope that God loves us enough to reward us with eternal life...
...which is what the Amish are doing...
Are you familiar with their reaction to the massacre by an outsider at one of their schools? (See Religious Tolerance and Wikipedia.) They displayed practical compassion and forgiveness. Not such a bad witness.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Stated simply, the Amish embolden atheists like no other Christian denomination.
???? Have you ever heard an atheist target them? I haven't.
I didn't say that they "targeted" Amish. The Amish embolden atheists in their conviction that all Christianity (including mainstream Christianity) is fundamentally anti-modern.
If that were true, wouldn't they have targeted them by now? Wouldn't we be besieged by articles, interviews, and PR about it?
Christopher Hitchens certainly didn't hold back about Mother Teresa. Richard Dawkins is an equal-opportunity critic of Christianity and religion in general, ISTM. I doubt Voltaire and Sartre spent much time worrying about the Amish, if they knew about them. I don't think I ever heard Madaline Murray O'Hare vent about them, either.
quote:
From their point of view, the Amish are following Christianity to its logical conclusions: reject modernity, believe outdated ideas, live outdated lives. (Therefore, it's a good thing to be an atheist and be free from all that...)
Have you ever heard an actual atheist actually *say* this??
quote:
This relates back to my original topic of Mormonism: If something as laughably false as Mormonism can gain millions of adherents, then atheists need not believe that mainstream Christianity necessarily has any core truth that justifies their billions of believers. Both Mormonism and the Amish provide templates for the deconstruction and delegitimation of Christianity.
They don't NEED Mormons and Amish to keep them from believing that! People have disbelieved Christianity from the beginning of it--and probably disbelieved in any kind of Deity from the beginning of our species.
Atheists who actively poke at Christianity (and not all do) find plenty of targets: virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, whether Jesus even existed, was Jesus based on the story of Osiris and/or Krishna, etc.
quote:
Of course they "aren't Essenes". They are 'like' the Essenes in their willingness to separate themselves from the real problems of the world.
Well, the Essenes didn't invent separatist communities. People in such communities (Amish, Essene, Buddhist monastics, Hassidic Jews, women's spiritually-focused land-owning cooperatives, etc.) still have to deal with many problems of the world: themselves, their neighbors, the community as a whole, health, staying fed and housed.
You can get away from some aspects of The World, but you're still in it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Late-night TV talk shows make fun of EVERYBODY in the news, more or less.
quote:
Not exactly. You will never hear a Leno or Letterman explicitly insult mainstream Christian beliefs. (The advertisers would bolt.) However, they are more than happy to pick on fringe groups, and what the secularist comedy writers say about the Amish is what they would like to say (but can't) about the rest of us.
But Leno and Letterman do make fun of Christian statements and behavior that they find evil or stupid. ("The pope said today,..', pedophile priests, etc.) I don't know that the comedy writers are secularists or atheists. You could just as easily say they're against all government, women, banks, the weather, education, airlines, pets, old people, little kids, and obscenely rich celebrities. Some humorists think *anything* is fair game.
And there are religious folks in show biz.
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Golden Key:
[qb] Where are you getting all this?? They fled religious persecution in Europe, and religious refugees often live in somewhat separatist communities.
I am literally describing the historical situation of the Essenes (in such a way that invites comparison with the motivations of the Amish).
But they're apples and oranges.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Whatever their flaws, the Amish aren't doing any systematic recruiting. They just want to live their lives and their faith.
Not true - living our lives and our faith is what us mainstream Christians are doing. The Amish are living under a deliberate judgmental separation from the rest of us, making the symbolic statement to the world that our lives are "evil".
Christianity as a whole would be better off if these people would "return" to the modern world and focus their energies on helping us all fight the sin in the world, rather than fighting the world itself.
The more I read your posts, the more personal they sound.
Are you feeling judged? Or like the Elder Brother to their Prodigal? You sure sound like it.
Have you or someone you care about been hurt by someone Amish?
Do you really think the battle between good and evil turns on whether or not a relatively small group of Christian separatists gives up everything ('cause that's what it would mean) and infiltrates the modern world for Christ?
Have *you* given up that much???
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Ultimately, God's going to do whatever He wants to with people, and he can judge them in ways that we cannot see. The best we can do is try to be as faithful as possible to our perception of what Jesus wants us to do, and hope that God loves us enough to reward us with eternal life...
...which is what the Amish are doing...
No, "Amish Jesus" wouldn't march into Jerusalem and get himself crucified.
If Amish Jesus and his disciples go into a city, he risks having his personal holiness tainted by sinful people and their sinful ideas.
Amish Jesus would separate from Jewish society and intensify his purity (which is exactly what the Essenes did).
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
This image is your Amish Jesus BWSmith. And reflects, refracts its projector.
Happy to take that up in Hell, as it´s about you, not the Amish.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
This image is your Amish Jesus BWSmith.
Fine, if Jesus is off limits, then what about the early church?
The Amish certainly are very good at following 1 Corinthians, with its charge against having a church divided between rich and poor.
They do not do so well when it comes to relations with the wider world. In Acts, we do not find a group so dedicated to its personal holiness that it isolates itself from the Gentiles or opposing Jews. The Judaizers are a step in that direction, and they are solidly condemned by Paul.
The $64,000 question then, is how to live in the world without being consumed by it? This is a struggle that mainstream Christians deal with every day, but cannot avoid.
The Amish seem to believe that perfect holiness is possible if one adheres to their 'Law' and keep themselves pure. This seems to be the kind of mindset that Jesus and Paul directly opposed.
Such legalism also leads them to odd hypocrisies that ORGANMEISTER already pointed out, like the use of batteries in certain situations, but only at a low voltage, and since don't make their own batteries, they can buy them from us "English", even though they can't simply wire up to a power plant.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I think the washing machine ran off a generator - but that was in a colony that allowed the BBC in.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It´s a struggle we must win. They are closer to showing us the way than most.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Thank you sabine. What a great thing to have done. You have surely blessed them as they have you. Just as God intended in Abraham and His Seed.
Bee Dubbyer. Bless.
Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here oor how it puts me in the same league as Abraham. Maybe my metaphorical cells are asleep today.
I was invited into Amish society after having a conversation with an Amish woman I encountered outside of any thought of anthropolgy. We had a lovely afternoon together and then I was invited to their home the next weekend when they were hosting worship. I ended up staying for a while and with their permission, observing. My friendship continued over a couple of decades and led to more formal research, all with permission.
It was a period of much mutual respect, and I am still in contact with some of the people I met.
sabine
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
We are called to be a blessing, chesed, grace, shalom, peace and you certainly are in the family of Abraham, whose Seed is his father.
Wow, let's start a movement! The Family of Abraham starting with Christians, Jews and Muslims!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I was surprised to discover that the Amish weren't struggling in small, declining communities, but that they'd actually grown in number significantly since the turn of the 20th c. This is mostly due to a high birthrate and the retention of young adults, but it's still impressive. If the Amish feel that they're in a positive place, they're not going to pay much attention to criticism from outsiders.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
And (getting back to the original topic), the Amish embolden atheists with their anti-modernity in the same way that the Mormons embolden atheists with their anti-historical reason.
Some Christians argue that "radical Islam is the real Islam", that is, all muslims would think like the terrorists if they were only stripped of their need to compromise with the west and were free to follow the Quran. Likewise, atheists can comfort themselves in the notion that "Mormons and Amish are the real Christians", in that the pursuit of Christianity in its purest form takes you straight out of Enlightenment rationalism and into something medieval and oppressive...
Atheists in the US are far more likely to think that conservative evangelical Christians are the real Christians, which does a huge disservice to all of us who find conservative evangelicalism contrary to the teachings of Christ.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We are called to be a blessing, chesed, grace, shalom, peace and you certainly are in the family of Abraham, whose Seed is his father.
Wow, let's start a movement! The Family of Abraham starting with Christians, Jews and Muslims!
Too late! Presidential speechwriters have long (well, since Clinton through Bush and now Obama) used the phrase Abrahamic religions in dozens of speeches, statements, and addresses.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Ah, but not The Family of Abraham. Which should include all who claim spiritual descent from him: who should be challengeable, criticizable on being a blessing. Starting with our own eye beams.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Ship of Fools Amish
I was following a forum on what we think of Mormons and it suddenly turned over to discussing the Amish. Hmmm!
The Amish are part of the wider ‘Anabaptist’ movement; they were founded as a distinct group among the Swiss Anabaptists by a leader called Jacob Amann who thought that many Anabaptists had become too worldly, and he called them to a stricter position in many areas and yes, a clearly separatist agenda. The Amish, like Britain’s ‘Exclusive Brethren’ have often shown the typical faults that come with such separatism ‘from the world’; but note that some degree of separation is a Christian ideal – Paul taught his readers to ‘come out from among them and be separate’. Also note that ‘The Amish’ are not a monolithic united organisation of clones, but cover quite a spectrum, as do the related and generally less strict Mennonites.
The basic beliefs of the Amish, unlike those of the Mormons, are ‘orthodox’ biblical Christianity similar to all Protestants except in the area of state-and-church relationships where they insist on a strict separation of church and state, and related to that they are pacifists; and if you actually check out your New Testaments you’ll realise that in that area they have got it basically right and the ‘mainstream’ denominations of ‘Christendom’ like Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians have got it wrong!
Yes, the Amish are a bit extreme – but in some ways their biggest fault is that they do almost no evangelism; it is rare for outsiders to join their communities. It is arguable that this aspect of Amish extremism is a reaction to (a) the way the whole situation in ‘The West’ is distorted by the existence of ‘Christendom’ – supposedly ‘Christian countries’, and (b) the fact that the Amish and other Anabaptists have suffered centuries of persecution by these supposedly Christian states.
Just in Northern Ireland alone Catholics and the various Protestants alike, because of their adherence to the idea of a Christian state, have been guilty of terrible conduct – Alys Harte’s documentary for BBC3 this Monday quoted 3,500 deaths just in the recent ‘Troubles’ which kicked off in the 1960s. Yet these are churches/denominations whose orthodoxy most of you out there would not be questioning, indeed most of you probably belong to the mainland UK or other lands' equivalents. The pacifism of Amish and other Anabaptists means that they would not be involved in Ulster’s guns and petrol bombs, nor would they be participating in Crusades, Inquisitions and the like. The faults of the Amish (and they certainly have faults!) are specks compared to the planks in the eye of ‘Christendom’.
Leave the Amish alone (or start a fresh strand to discuss them properly?) and get this strand back to criticism of the truly unorthodox Mormons and what would appear to be the scam of the supposed ‘Book of Mormon’ on which they are founded. Oh yes, and note that the Mormons do seem to agree with ‘Christendom’, and disagree with the NT, in accepting warfare – in their early years they fought a war with the USA to defend their practice of polygamy. So while criticising the Mormons perhaps you could also look at and be critical of the unbiblical practices of Christendom.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Sometimes it seems like the whole point about a religion is that certain ideas are above criticism, to be accepted without question as part of the price of membership of the community.
From that perspective, perhaps we ought to feel sorry for the Mormons, as the stuff they're obliged to respect and defend is well inside the fruitcake zone.
But there seems to be this strange dynamic whereby nonsense is fruitful - the further out on a limb the ideas, the greater the sense of community amongst those who really believe.
And then that core attracts an outer circle who are in it for the way of life, the true community, and are happy to take the ideas on the say-so of the good people of the community.
Just as for any religious group.
Those who judge people on the quality of their thinking may well look down on the Mormons. But those who think Christianity is more about living the Way of Jesus may well find many Mormons ahead of them on the path to heaven.
Maybe that's what it is about the Mormons that discomforts us - they're a challenge to the assumption of a link between the good and the true.
Best wishes,
Russ
PS: Agreed, Martin, I'm something of a fan of OSC also.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0