created by aaronshaf2006 aka Bill McKeever
Brief Synopsis:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That's the official name for what is popularly known as the Mormon Church. Most people associate Mormons with missionaries on bikes, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and polygamy. Of course, that's not the whole story. The Mormons are a peculiar people, with a unique set of beliefs and quite a history.
Meet Mitt Romney. Romney is a Mormon Republican who'd like to be the next president. People are asking the question: Will his religion affect whether or not evangelicals vote for him? That's a good question. But to many of us evangelical Christians in Utah who witness to Mormons, we think there are more important questions. Will this be an opportunity for the public to learn about what Mormonism really teaches? Will the doctrines of Mormonism be accurately portrayed? Will people understand the differences between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity?
This video is more about Mormonism than it is about Mitt Romney. We use an interview Romney had on the Charlie Rose show as a springboard for conversation.
*My Thoughts*
Well, first of all, I think that if Mitt could be honest about his beliefs instead of trying to pass off the responsibility for the "weird teachings" onto his church, and pretend that he doesn't believe in the most offensive un-christian teachings, then when presented with them, he can deny that he adheres to them. Fine, let Mr. Romney deny that he supported the church while they denied the priesthood to blacks until 1978. Let him deny that the church teaches men can become Gods of their own world someday and that is the entire point of obtaining the temple ordinances and holding the proper priesthood authority that other churches do not have access to. Let him stand up and say that teaching Adam was our father God and the only God with whom the Mormons will have anything to do with is completely contrary to Christian doctrine as taught in other churches, and he completely rejects Brigham Young as a prophet, seer or revelator. Let him also denounce the practice of polygamy, even the part where his church has it still kept as official scripture and true doctrine, but that they are just unable to practice it because of laws against it. Let him make up his mind whether he really defends and upholds his faith, the teachings and revelations of his church and his prophet, or if he is going to deny that these teachings are part of Mormonism.
That's my whole beef: Mitt Romney is a Mormon who thinks he is a Christian. And he can't be both....most Christian people, upon hearing these doctrines and beliefs of the Mormon church are NOT going to agree that Mitt Romney can call himself a Christian AND adhere to these beliefs. They go against common Christian themes, doctrines and beliefs in MANY key areas, such as baptism for the dead, and claiming that Adam is the Ancient of Days and will take up a throne at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, the place in Independence, Missouri where the LDS members have believed and still claim that Eden was created, and where the New Jerusalem will be built.
Christian people will not accept that Mitt is Christian once these doctrines are brought forth and the church attempts to hide them, or claim that they are being twisted and misinterpreted. It seems pretty straightforward to me, and to thousands of former members who left the church after discovering just how divergent this religion is from traditional Christian thought and belief. Calling yourself a Christian just because you were baptized in the name of Jesus doesn't make it true, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. And the idea that this plan of salvation, where men end up becoming Gods in their own right is going to sound eerily similar to that old scoundrel Satan written about in the Bible, who was cast out of heaven for WANTING THE SAME THING!!!
What I really wish is that people could let go of this idea of Good vs. Evil, Heaven and Hell, damnation or salvation. It's nothing but fear that drives these people like the wild beasts of the field. It's almost as if the most fervently religious among us have lost all common sense and rationality. I would NOT want this country to be led by a deeply religious man, (or woman). I would rather have a deeply spiritual leader, one who uses both his intellect and his connection to the universe, to make the tough decisions, lead fearlessly, and be HONEST with the people who look to him in times of anguish and confusion. I can readily support a leader who would occasionally make a mistake, if he could ADMIT IT. But to insist that the White House have a religious right-wing nut job in control of the most watched and criticized country on the planet is just asking for our asses kicked. We're NEVER going to NOT be at war with some other country as long as we have some ego-maniacal God's right hand man on the job.
On a bumper sticker I once saw:
Dear God, please save me from all your true believers....
Now, I know that some folks out there are going to wonder why I insist on posting Anti-Mitt material on my blog. No, I've never met the man. No, I've never been subject to his influence or lived in Massachusetts. But here's my main reason: Even MITT doesn't know what his church taught to those early members, or what doctrines that used to be at the forefront of the church's belief system, have now been quietly tucked away, denied, or most recently just excused as "we don't teach that anymore".
It MATTERS!!!! There are things people don't know that if they had been given the opportunity to know, would have swayed their decision to join the church. They would have been spared the compulsion to pay, pray and obey for a system that willingly and purposefully did away with 'truths that are not useful' in uplifting and sustaining a testimony. IN OTHER WORDS: They LIED. A lie of omission, to be sure....but still a lie. And thousands get sucked in every year, not knowing the full story, the entire account of who Joseph Smith was, and how the church was constructed in the beginning. Instead, as they come upon little bits and pieces, accidentally or through sites like mine, they are constantly forced to choose between what they are taught, and what they learn from other sources. The church's answer is simple: just avoid all other sources and you will never be troubled or have any doubts about the truth. But is that really the way people should be treated? Like they are so simple minded that they have to have the truth doled out to them in little spoonfuls so that their testimony remains in tact? What is a testimony except for a set of beliefs one comes to defend? And how fair is it to be expected to defend your beliefs if you never learn from any other source or have anything to compare them to?
And the biggest champion for this "limited reach" practice: Boyd K. Packer
From Richard Packham's site:
Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave a talk to Mormon historians and teachers, titled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect," at the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, 22 August, 1981, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, published later in Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1981 [emphasis added]:
There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work....Packer cautioned his listeners about how they should present the history of the church: There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.Church history can he so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.
If we who research, write, and teach the history of the Church ignore the spiritual on the pretext that the world may not understand it, our work will not be objective. And if, for the same reason, we keep it quite secular, we will produce a history that is not accurate and not scholarly
Some things that are true are not very useful.
Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.
Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.
What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.
It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.
Here's the deal breaker:
Either you give up your right to reason and logic, and cast aside anything that does NOT help you maintain your beliefs, in order to gain the approval needed to get to the Celestial Kingdom.
OR
you decide that your testimony is really based on keeping out anything that would cause you to doubt your chosen course, and you choose to discover the truth for YOURSELF, no matter how painful it may be to discover.
1 comment:
'Now, I know that some folks out there are going to wonder why I insist on posting Anti-Mitt material on my blog.'.............don't call it Anti-Mitt but True-Mitt.
Post a Comment