One has to admire the Mormon Church’s eagerness to please, not to mention their zeal to convert. They are matched only by their brother in cult-dom, Scientology, as well as the various tentacles of the mega-cult Christianity.
As I strolled down a street this morning in Brooklyn, I noticed a line of fliers (pictured above), advertising the Mormon Church’s a attempt to win over the heathens with a meet-up on (held Tuesday), a games night this Friday at McCarren Park, and a kickball, ultimate frisbee and “other sports” meet-up at McCarren Park on Saturday. With such a magnificent sub-headline as “Truth is stronger than fiction,” I’m almost tempted to attend, if only to encounter religious delusion up close. Perhaps I will—undercover, naturally.
Having been raised Christian in the Methodist Church, I was in close proximity to those who had a collective imaginary friend. At Sunday service I spent my time reading The Book of Job (great writing, to be sure) and Revelation (great, surreal and orgiastic ultra-violence), when not playing Tic-Tac-Toe or sketching naked ladies with my friends.
The Meet the Mormons fliers got me wondering if this was some low-profile, grassroots campaign designed to ease the fears of voters who might be weary of Mitt Romney come November. It wouldn’t be the first time that the Mormon Church launched a campaign to inform the masses that Mormons can be anyone—Korean, African, etc. Indeed, when one sends missionaries with bad outfits around the world, instructing them to relentlessly badger a country’s population, the laws of statistics dictate that at least a few Koreans and Africans will be hoodwinked.
My father often said to me as a child, “A fool and his money are soon parted.” Well, I’d like to appropriate that phrase to now read, in the case of religion, but specifically the Mormon faith, “Man and his mind are soon divorced when in the presence of religion.”
And if you think I’m being hard on Mormons or Mittens because of their religious peculiarities (super-powered undies, human transmigration into galactic gods), think again. Basic human rights allow me to speak freely on matters of religion; but the U.S. Constitution, with its First Amendment ensuring free press and freedom of religion, enshrines that right.
Kickball with the Mormons does sound mighty absurd, though. Good, clean delusional fun. Hell, I’d like to learn more about becoming a galactic god. Wouldn’t you? Then again, this is the faith that grew out of “prophet” Joseph Smith’s vision, which later compelled him to create a religious city-state, censor the press, raise an army and launch an insurrection (which he did a number of times) against the U.S. government. Now there is a truth far stronger than the Mormon Church’s various fictions.
I leave you with a quote from the illustrious Bertrand Russell:
One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.
September 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm, Republicans Run Like Hell from Mittens « THE SCARECROW said:
[...] Mormons helping Mittens with ‘Meet the Mormons’ activities? (deathandtaxesmag.com) [...]
September 19, 2012 at 8:40 pm, Joshua Herrera said:
How is this news?
September 19, 2012 at 9:24 pm, Milad Mahonrri Galvez Soto said:
How is a cat getting catnapped from the front of someones house news?
September 20, 2012 at 11:08 am, Don Pritchard said:
How is anything Justin Bieber does news?
September 20, 2012 at 4:19 am, Rodney Ross said:
You had so many errors in your article, you need to head to the next "games" night!
September 20, 2012 at 5:35 am, Paul H. Smith said:
Why the chip on your shoulder over the Mormon church? Were you perhaps once spurned by some primly-kempt Mormon maiden? Was she put off by the thread of disdain for facts or accuracy running through your journalistic endeavors? Ah, well just as I thought. You truly have my sympathy. If it's any consolation, she's probably temple-married with six kids by now, anyway. Hardly worth mooning over…
September 20, 2012 at 8:40 am, Linda Dawson Fiatoa said:
Here's what I think:
I think you are secretly afraid that we are right, and you don't like that.
September 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm, Milad Mahonrri Galvez Soto said:
Not to mention how incredibly ignorant the author is. Oh well, i guess to some ignorance is bliss and respectively their own religion.
September 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm, Brian Davis said:
It couldn't hurt because it's obvious you have a lot to learn.
September 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm, 項麗玲 said:
Obviously the Mormons are displeased with you not regurgitating their church's new pr spin (whatever that is now).
September 20, 2012 at 5:16 pm, Phillip C. Smith said:
There are critics of every religion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) has its share. By a critic is meant one who, from the perspective of the official Church leadership and generally its faithful members, misrepresents our theology, morality, organization and/or history. This does not mean perfection of members because this is impossible. It does mean to focus on not only what the Church teaches but on those who are trying to faithfully represent the Church. All should feel free to express their views freely and with civility without fear of retribution, of course, but should try to be fair. The goal of society generally should be to try honestly to come up with an accurate picture of what those in all religions believe and do.
To get it right about the Church in question (or any religion) the late Krister Stendahl (1921-2008), a Lutheran minister and former professor and dean at the Divinity School of Harvard University, outlined very insightful guidelines for inter-religious discussion:
(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the (faithful) adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don’t compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for “holy envy.” (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize and acknowledge elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)
Those commenting on the LDS Church will, I hope, come to follow these guidelines. Believing, faithful Church members have had their trials but out of these most have tried to develop a more accurate, realistic perspective. Critics seem to focus often on anything they can find that is negative. Stendahl’s counsel is well suited for them and for all of us.
September 21, 2012 at 4:13 am, 項麗玲 said:
And if one is not religious? Even series done with a bias *in favor* of the LDS church have been criticised by a majority of Mormons; no church is perfect, and history proves that. Blind followers of any faith simply do not care about real truth, mainly perhaps reassurance.
September 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm, 19 September 2012 | MormonVoices said:
[...] http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/188719/mormons-helping-mittens-with-meet-the-mormons-activities/ [...]
September 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm, Dave Carlson said:
I hope you do take the time to go. Then at least you can see members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) first hand, up close and base your opinions on some actual information. You will find that you will be very welcome but very disappointed if you expect to see "cults" 'horns" "multiply wives" "super undies" "insurrections" "galactic gods", etc. or other nonsensical stereotypes that are perpetuated by the ignorant. You seem too intelligent to have trouted for all the misinformation in your post.
September 20, 2012 at 7:08 pm, Kent French said:
When people use the word cult in our day and time it is meant to be derogatory and demeaning. In other words, they are purposely trying to insult someone else's faith in an attempt to make themselves look and feel superior. Thus, it says more about them than anyone else.
That said, what most people do not realize is that there are two types of Christians. There are traditional Nicene Christians and Latter-day Christians (Mormons). Since they both believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that they are saved by the grace of Christ's atoning sacrifice, it follows that they are both Christians. The bottom line difference is that Nicene Christians believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same God, and that he (God) is a spirit without a body, parts or passions. On the other hand, Latter-day Christians teach that Jesus Christ is a separate person from his Heavenly Father, that he has been resurrected with an immortal, glorified body of flesh and bones and that he is still resurrected today.
On a personal note, after pondering the Nicene doctrine concerning the nature of God, I have come to the conclusion that traditional Christians must believe Christ has returned to being a three in one spirit without a body, parts, and passions, and that he is no longer a resurrected personage. Is that true? If so I would be very interested in gaining a better understanding of their doctrine on this matter.
September 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm, 項麗玲 said:
Wow, I do believe I'm the only non-Mormon commenter. I can only guess who everyone is going to vote for here.
Also, PBS' series on Mormonism confirms at least the religious city-state, censored press bit… People can try to change as many stories, records and accounts as possible, but no one can truly change history….
September 20, 2012 at 11:39 pm, Dwight Rogers said:
President Lincolin also censured the presss and had a printing press destroyed because it was printing falsehoods. President Lincolin believed that the constitution allowed government officials the right to do this when slander was being printed. The newspaper destroyed in Nauvoo was also printing slander and falsehoods.
Also, note that the Nauvoo Legion was legal and chartered by the state of Illinois and that it was never used for anything but showy parades and ceremony.
September 21, 2012 at 3:48 am, 項麗玲 said:
1) These 'falsehoods' were coming from former/dissenting church members, regarding Joseph Smith and the practice of polygamy. 2) They published one, and only one issue before Mr. Smith and his "city council" declared it a public nuisance, and destroyed the printing press. Even if it were legally a public nuisance, they could have just destroyed the papers, and not the entire printing press.
*And* the city of Nauvoo's actions against the newspaper (called the Expositor) actually violated Illinois constitution's freedom-of-press provision. So even though freedom of the press only applied to the federal government, the state of Illinois did in fact already have a law protecting freedom of the press, and Joseph Smith simply did not care.
It's a fallacious/disingenuous comparison at best to equate wartime censorship (a war fought in the interest of freedom and greater equality, nonetheless) to whatever 'threat' a single paper (literally only one issue) could have posed. And it's easy to see how one could blur the lines if you're both the prophet and leader of a religious organization *and* the mayor of a town settled by your religious followers.
Also, a lot of what was censored during wartime was in the interest of preventing security leaks (information about the Union's military preparations and decisions, etc), and freedom of speech was still widely respected (and Lincoln was actually one of the most slandered Presidents for his time); although anything that occurs during war is always far from perfect or ideal (as was Lincoln; but at least he was right about the end result of freeing people from slavery justifying the means by which they had to achieve that). This thing with Joseph Smith destroying one opposing printing press (not just simple censorship btw) was not the same thing.
September 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm, Dwight Rogers said:
Joseph Smith or the Mormons launched no insurrections. The article you link to gets most things historically wrong. It is typical misinformation and misrepresented history. Reminds me of this article.
September 21, 2012 at 4:07 am, 項麗玲 said:
Perhaps DJ was referring to the occasions on which Joseph Smith and Brigham Young declared "martial law."
September 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm, Dwight Rogers said:
See this video for a more accurate history of what happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN3RALJEokc&feature=em-uploademail
September 20, 2012 at 11:45 pm, Dwight Rogers said:
Reverand Jeffress said. "And I still maintain there are vast differences in theology between Mormons and Christians."
This seems to be a common view among many Christians and actually they are right to say that there are some major differences, although there are more similarities than differences. However, there are also vast differences between current Christianity and Early Christianity.
If Christianity means “historic orthodox mainstream Christianity” of today then I would agree that Mormonism is not historic Christianity; at least not in every doctrine. Although Mormons have much in common with other Christians Mormons also believe differently than historic Christians in some key areas. But the real questions to ask are 1) What is original Christianity? 2) Is mainstream Christianity of today the same as original Christianity? It turns out that Joseph Smith was right. Mormonism is a restoration of Original Christianity. It is not my intent to criticize Christians of today. However, with all the criticism of Mormonism it is important to notice that in many areas of belief Mormons are closer to original Christianity than are most Christians of today.
Mormons believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. However “Trinity’ is a word that is not found in the Bible. Nor are the definitions and wording formulations in the extra-Biblical creeds found in the Bible. In 325 AD a council of about 300 (out of 1800 serving) bishops gathered in Nicea at the request of the pagan Emperor Constantine and formulated a creed that tried to reconcile the Biblical statements that there three persons called “God” and yet there was “one” God. They then forced all Christians to accept their solution as “gospel”, with varying results. Theological debates and other councils continued to tweak the concept for centuries which produced additional creeds.
September 20, 2012 at 11:46 pm, Dwight Rogers said:
Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups is the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on.
For example; in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that "there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions," thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.)
Contrary to the creeds, the resurrected Jesus taught: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as yes see me have." (Luke 24:39).
From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong, or are a cult, because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
The Bible is then viewed through the lens of these creeds causing certain interpretations to be favored and other biblical teachings to be minimized or ignored. Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.
September 20, 2012 at 11:47 pm, Dwight Rogers said:
In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.
Joseph Smith taught “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).
The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later. Does that mean that the early Christians are not really Christians because they did not believe in a “one substance” god. I don’t think so.
September 21, 2012 at 4:14 am, 項麗玲 said:
If this is in response to the author, or even me, note that neither one of us are religious. :/
October 19, 2012 at 1:21 am, Mirna Laudelina Santos-Linster said:
Well to each his own, no one says you have to believe in god, but do believe that the things this church teaches are true. In the end guess we'll have to see, I would rather stand at the side of god than lay a the foot of saitan. Mitt is also championing for president not the church one has nothing to do with the other.