Glenn Beck leans forward on his elbows. His voice hushes. His eyes grow red at the corners. He presses his lips together and clears his throat. He cannot speak. The tears fall, and just for a moment the brashest voice in American conservatism today falls silent.
This is what happens when Beck tells the story of his 1999 conversion to Mormonism.
“I was friendless, working in the smallest radio market I had ever worked in... a hopeless alcoholic, abusing drugs every day,” Beck said in an interview taped last fall. “I was trying to find a job and nobody would hire me... couldn’t get an agent to represent me.”
That’s when Beck’s wife-to-be Tania suggested that the family go on a “church tour,” which finally led (after some prodding from Beck’s longtime on-air partner Pat Gray, a Mormon) to his local Mormon wardhouse. Six months later, the Beck family joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
“I was baptized on a Sunday, and on Monday”—Beck’s throat tightens again; he wipes tears from his eyes with his index fingers—“an agent called me out of the blue.” Three days later, Beck was offered his own political talk radio show at WFLA-AM in Tampa, Florida, the job that put him on the road from “morning zoo” radio prankster to conservative media heavyweight.
Spiritual narratives of the I-once-was-lost-now-I-am-financially-sound variety are commonplace within Mormonism, which, like most of American Protestantism, has never been allergic to wealth. The institutional culture of the Mormon Church is strongly corporate, down to the dark suits, white shirts, and red or blue ties church leaders wear instead of vestments; Mormonism’s most powerful public figures like Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman Jr., and Bill Marriott Jr., come from the business world.
But whether or not one believes that God rewards baptism with fortune, it is clear that Glenn Beck’s conversion to and education in the Mormon faith after 1999 corresponds precisely with his rise as a media force.
Beck, who was raised Catholic in Washington state, has produced, with the help of Mormon Church-owned Deseret Book Company, the DVD An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck (2008); Mormon fansites invite visitors to learn more about Beck’s beliefs by clicking through to the official Web site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But what these fansites don’t reveal is the extent to which Mormonism has given Beck key elements of his on-air personality and messaging.
Teary Tirades and Mormon Masculinity
Before 1999, Glenn Beck told jokes and pulled on-air stunts for a living. He developed the content of his current conservative messaging (an amalgation of anti-communism, United States-founder worship, and connect-the-dots conspiracy theorizing) after his entree into the deeply insular world of Mormon thought and culture. A significant figure in this world is the late Cleon Skousen (1913–2006), the archconservative and fiercely anti-communist Brigham Young University professor, founder of the Freeman Society, and author of 15 books, including The Naked Capitalist, The Making of America, and Prophecy and Modern Times. Beck, who first cited Skousen in his 2003 book The Real America: Messages from the Heart and the Heartland, later started pitching Skousen’s 1981 book The 5,000 Year Leap on air in December, 2008. He wrote a preface for a new edition of the book issued a few months later and in his March 2009 kick-off of the 9/12 movement declared Skousen’s book to be “divinely inspired.” In a recent article for Salon.com, Alexander Zaitchik suggested that Beck “rescued [Skousen] from the remainder pile of history.” But Cleon Skousen was never remaindered among the most politically conservative Mormons, for whom he has been a household name since the 1960s.
It is likely that Beck owes his brand of Founding Father-worship to Mormonism, where reverence for the founders and the United States Constitution as divinely inspired are often-declared elements of orthodox belief. Mormon Church President Wilford Woodruff (1807–1898) declared that George Washington and the signers of the Declaration of Independence appeared to him in the Mormon Temple in St. George, Utah in 1877, and requested that he perform Mormon temple ordinances on their behalf. Many Mormons also believe that Joseph Smith prophesied in 1843 that the US Constitution would one day “hang by a thread” and be saved by faithful Mormons; this idea was given new life in the 1960s by former US Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, who cited Smith’s 1843 prophecy from the pulpit while speaking as a member of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles.
Many key elements of Beck’s on-the-fly messaging derive from a Mormon lexicon, such as his Twitter-issued September 19 call: “Sept 28. Lets make it a day of Fast and Prayer for the Republic. Spread the word. Let us walk in the founders steps.” This call to fasting and prayer may indeed have been an appropriation of the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, but it is also rooted in the traditional Mormon practice of holding individual, familial, and collective fasts to address spiritual challenges.
Even the overt sentimentality Beck now indulges from time to time was formed within the cradle of Mormon literary culture. Take, for example, his novel The Christmas Sweater (2008) (co-authored by Mormon writer Jason Wright) and its accompanying children’s picture book, which tell the story of an impoverished twelve-year-old boy who rejects a “handmade, ugly sweater” his widowed mother knits him for Christmas, only to watch his mother die in a fiery car crash hours later. This punishing sentimentality is a consistent feature of Mormon storytelling from Church-produced cinematic classics like Cipher in the Snow (1973) and The Mailbox (1977) to the New York Times-bestselling novel The Christmas Box (1995) by Mormon author Richard Paul Evans.
Finally, Beck’s oft-ridiculed penchant for punctuating his tirades with tears is the hallmark of a distinctly Mormon mode of masculinity. As sociologist David Knowlton has written, “Mormonism praises the man who is able to shed tears as a manifestation of spirituality.” Crying and choking up are understood by Mormons as manifestations of the Holy Spirit. For men at every rank of Mormon culture and visibility, appropriately-timed displays of tender emotion are displays of power.
Peace on the Religious Right between Mormons and Evangelicals?
Indeed, Beck, who grew up without a father, narrates his conversion and personal transformation around a series of tearful bonding moments with Mormon men, from the Sunday School teacher who first taught him about the Mormon concept of Zion—“Tears started to roll down his cheeks, and he said, ‘It can only happen if I truly love you and you love me’”—to his baptism by immersion by his longtime friend Pat Gray, who was so choked up, according to Beck, that “he couldn’t get the words out.”
Not typical of Mormon masculinity are Beck’s high-decibel swings between bombast and self-deprecation. Such demonstrative excesses are socialized out of most Mormon men during a regimented process of masculine formation that begins with entry into the lowest ranks of Mormonism’s lay priesthood at age 12, intensifies during compulsory missionary service from age 19 through 21, and continues throughout a lifetime of service within hierarchical priesthood quorums. A textbook example of the traditional Mormon “man of steel and velvet” is Mitt Romney, whose inability to connect with the Republican base may have as much to do with his lack of familiar jocularity and chest-thumping outrage as it does with the perceived weirdness of his Mormon beliefs. As a convert, Beck missed out on crucial early years of Mormon male socialization. Consequently, his renegade persona may endear him even more to his Mormon male fans who might like to comport themselves as he does, but feel they cannot.
It’s true that his Mormonism sometimes gets Beck into trouble with evangelical Christians, who have long antagonized Mormons by denying the authenticity of their belief in Jesus Christ and deriding the Mormon Church as a cult. Last December, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Web site pulled a Beck column, citing concerns about his Mormon ties. Still, Beck’s spectacular rise suggests that evangelical conservatives (especially those under 40 who may not remember the anti-Mormon cult crusades of the 1980s) are increasingly willing to set aside their reservations about Mormons when it suits their pragmatic and political interests.
Glenn Beck marks an unprecedented national mainstreaming of a peculiar strand of religious political conservatism rooted in, and once isolated to, the Mormon culture regions of the American West. That Mormons are capable of leveraging disproportionate political influence with decisive results was one of the great lessons of California’s 2008 election season, wherein readily-mobilized Mormons, who make up 2% of California’s population, contributed more than 50% of the individual donations to the successful anti-marriage equality Proposition 8 campaign, and a sizeable majority of its on-the-ground efforts.
How much traction Glenn Beck can muster remains to be seen. But if the American religious right has sometimes been imagined as a monolithic product of the evangelical Deep South and Bible Belt, the rise of Glenn Beck suggests that those who would understand American conservatism might also look West, toward Salt Lake City.
Tags: church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, conversion, fasting, glenn beck, masculinity, mitt romney, mormon, mormons, talk radio
You've really misunderstood Mormonism. A little background research can go a long way...
"Spiritual narratives of the I-once-was-lost-now-I-am-financially-sound variety are commonplace within Mormonism, which, like most of American Protestantism..."
Mormons are not Protestant. Also, Mormons do not typically subscribe to the so called "prosperity gospel," as you suggest.
"Insular world of Mormon thought and culture"
Very nice attempt to try to label us as "other," but we're not as insular as you might think.
"A significant figure in this world is the late Cleon Skousen"
I've been a Mormon for nearly thirty years, and the only time I've ever heard the name "Cleon Skousen" is in connection with Glenn Beck. He's not a prominent figure in Mormon thought. He's practically unheard of, recent comments in the news aside. The idea that he is a "household name" is laughable.
To suggest that Mormons worship the Founding Fathers is obviously offensive.
The idea that the constitution will one day hang by a thread and that Mormons will save America is often the subject of jokes in Mormon circles. Most educated Mormons recognize it as the folklore that it is. It's hardly an orthodox teaching in the Church.
"Beck’s oft-ridiculed penchant for punctuating his tirades with tears is the hallmark of a distinctly Mormon mode of masculinity."
You are right about Mormon masculinity, but your subsequent description is off. Mormons don't shed tears because they're trying to come across as "powerful." Strange or not, Mormons are sincere.
Finally, missionary service is not compulsory.
I'd like to invite your readers to go back through your article and read the word "Jew" everywhere where you wrote Mormon. See if it sounds right. Then evaluate whether or not there's a double standard being applied here.
If LDS are Christian and not Catholic or Orthodox, that makes them Protestant. Those are the sweeping branches of Christianity, and within them there are certainly many dogmatic differences, but Mormons are part of the Christian tradition as it grew out of American Protestantism. It may be the first purely American branch of Christianity, but it still qualifies as Protestant.
If the author had said Mormons 'worship' the founding fathers in the way you seem to be reading it, I'd agree that it is offensive. But I think he's talking more about a sort of hero-worship and great admiration, no more than the treatment of human saints of other faiths.
To compare Jews to Mormons, as you suggest, is going to be fruitless in this context. Conversion from Catholicism to Mormonism and conversion from Catholicism to Judaism and their accompanying social/institutional norms are very different processes, and to compare the two will not reveal a 'double standard,' as the two faiths don't exactly share the standards in question.
In my conversations with Mormons, I found it hard to think of them as Christian at all. They say that they are, but what they claim is far from Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist traditions. They have a slight resemblance to the early Disciples of Christ, but they have a mythological outlook that seems unique to them. At least, that is my take on Mormons.
Mormons seem to want to hide their uniqueness.
Whether Mormons are Christian or not depends a lot on your definition of the word "Christian." Most Mormons want to define "Christian" as someone who believes in Christ.
Critics of Mormonism want to define "Christian" as someone who believes the Nicean Creed, the "traditional" beliefs of most Christian churches.
No doubt, your reticence about thinking of Mormons as Christian comes from the feeling that Christians should be like traditional Christians.
What is your definition, and why do you think that definition should be used?
FWIW, my perception is that the majority of people in the U.S., if you ask them, would define "Christian" as someone who believes in Christ. But then, I have to admit, most people also don't know what the Nicean Creed is or what it says. Who knows if they would even agree with it if they did?
Why? That is a false dillema. Christianity is not confined to your neat boxes. As a true "Restoration" movement it isn't based on "protesting" any part of Catholicism but is wholly unconcerned with it. It is merely the failed remnants of original Christianity, which is now rightfully restored in its original form, from the LDS point of view.
im so glad joe smith restored gods church. so are my 10 wives.
Actually, sarah k, a lot of this depends on what categories you think should exist in classifying the different versions of Christianity. Most Mormons, like myself, prefer to classify Mormons as "restorationist" rather than "protestant" to emphasize a different approach from the reformation, from which most Protestant sects seemed to draw inspiration. For Mormons and other "restorationist" groups, the difference is the belief that Christianity is so far from what Christ established that the only way the truth can return is if it is "restored" by God. "Reforming" what existed in Christianity isn't an option, according to "restorationist" views.
Of course, not everyone agrees with this, and so a lot depends on what definitions you want to use for each category.
The "restoration" movements spring from Protestantism, branching from the same tree. I agree in the difference of purpose, but you can't deny the common heritage. That was my intent in the definition.
There is a subtle distinction you've drawn that is worth noting. That Protestants "reform" while Restorationists "restore." Both are rooted in the ideas that the institutions of Christianity have been corrupted by man, and those institutions must be "reformed," "restored," and in the process, practitioners of these faiths are actively "Protesting" the older institutions.
To create an entirely new category that claims to be the original is a contradiction of terms. Ergo, If LDS is Christian, as it cannot be the original Church(es), it must be a type of Protestant, or protester against the other churches.
Huh?
sarah k, I agree with Ted Morgan. I don't think your argument is presented in a way that I can understand, so its hard to see whether or not your argument has any validity. What do you mean by "To create an entirely new category that claims to be the original is a contradiction of terms." Why not? Why can't the LDS Church be the original Church?
You seem to be very caught up in the dichotomy of Catholic vs. Protestant.
I think you will need to make your argument in a much more detailed fashion.
yes, make your arguement better. which phoney church is the best.
Bravo... beautiful double talk.
why does god have to restore his church? do you think god let his church lapse? well, i guess every church has to have some angle or they wouldnt be different.
JDD,
1. Read Brooks' words: "...Mormonism, which, like most of American Protestantism..." does not necessarily imply that Mormons are protestants.
2. The question of whether Mormons are protestants has no universally agreed-upon answer, and depends wholly on one's interpretation of the word "protestant". Your statement on this issue is a valid opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. You might consider supporting your opinion with an argument, but you chose not to do so.
3. Your being Mormon alone does not give you any more credibility than Brooks, as she is also Mormon. In fact, she is also a professor and a scholar of American religion. This fact on its own does not make her views better than yours, but your implication that she lacks in perspective and proper research is laughable.
4. Just because you have never heard of somebody does not necessarily mean they are not a significant figure.
JDD, I knew Joanna when we were both students at BYU in the mid 1980s. I assure you that she is quite aware of the issues you mention. She doesn't need to do "background research" - she lived Mormonism.
Others have corrected some of your misconceptions, but let me add a few notes:
"I've been a Mormon for nearly thirty years, and the only time I've ever heard the name "Cleon Skousen" is in connection with Glenn Beck."
Then you are ill-informed or do not live in Utah. He isn't as well known as he was in the 1960s to 1980s, but he was a significant figure. His books have generally remained in print and sold well for decades.
Also, I don't believe Joanna said that we worship the founding fathers. And as for the "constitution hanging by a thread," it certainly has been taught among many Mormons as doctrine, although you may be correct that many look at it as doctrine as they once did.
She also never said that Mormons are not sincere in shedding tears. It is often perceived, however, as evidence of the influence of the Spirit.
As for missionary service, in many respects, and especially in Utah, it is culturally compulsory and heavily encouraged by Church leaders, even if the Church doesn't formally "require" it of young men.
I'd like to invite you to re-read the original article, and see if you are not being overly sensitive to Joanna's attempt to explain Mormonism in a way that non-Mormons can actually understand without understanding Mormon jargon.
Hail joseph Smith and his majic gold plates that nobody but him has ever seen.
Encountering a trio of young Mormons in a Latin American city, a former member of the Clinton Administration pointed out that these young men would be fluent in at least one foreign language by the time they returned to the USA. Thus when the US Foreign Service or CIA is recruiting, their language skills make young Mormons extremely attractive candidates. There are - he said - thousands of Mormons in every branch and at every level of these most politically sensitive branches of the US government.
I haven't looked for any confirmation of this snippet of insider information but it just might have significant effects on the US's role in the wider world.
This is absolutely true. Years ago J.Edgar Hoover encouraged Mormons to join the F.B.I., because their religion did not allow them to smoke or drink. I'm sure that dear J. Edgar was not aware of how fiercely anti-gay the Mormons were, and are.
A huge problem for Mormons is that once they get out among "gentiles" they are sometimes, humanly, tempted. They are also often shocked to find out that non-Mormons do not, for the most part, worship the devil.
Encountering a trio of young Mormons in a Latin American city, a former member of the Clinton Administration pointed out that these young men would be fluent in at least one foreign language by the time they returned to the USA. Thus when the US Foreign Service or CIA is recruiting, their language skills make young Mormons extremely attractive candidates. There are - he said - thousands of Mormons in every branch and at every level of these most politically sensitive branches of the US government.
I haven't looked for any confirmation of this snippet of insider information but it just might have significant effects on the US's role in the wider world.
When I lived in Oregon, I found that Mormon networking increased their influence in goverment agencies. They seemed to control access to employment in some school systemes.
They are "nice" people. They do not seem to face much opposition.
Mormon Hierarchy are greedy, money loving crooks that deceive their flock just as bad as prosperity gospel pushers. They openly declare that unless you give 10% of your uncome to the church you will die spiritually and will never enter the House of the Lord.
(their official statement)
And speaking of cronyism....Politicians got nothing on them in that regard. They are definitely a non-christian cult.
And yes,many are wonderful, "nice" people ;) Will gladly help anyone (it helps to be a mormon or to be seen by them as a potential mormon for that)
"Greedy, money loving crooks"?? Apparently you're not aware that the LDS has an unpaid clergy and that the 15 people of the whole church who are paid clergy and are supported by that 10% live very modestly--no six figure income to spend on whatever they want, no jets, no out of control mansions, no lounging on tropical beaches. Where do you get your information? The church funds go to humanitarian aid, church buildings and temples, real estate, educational materials, missionary work, welfare and food for the poor. Yes, it's a very wealthy church, but those dollars are not making the "Hierarchy" rich. Take a trip to Utah and you'll see for yourself.
wear holy under-"garments", or is that just for those born in the faith? Marriott wears "garments", and said they saved him from drowning after a boating accident.
Magical underwear is only one strange facet of the faith... But a very important one, evidently.
phatkhat, this really doesn't have anything to do with the article, IMO. So what? Most religions have strange beliefs of one kind or another. Mormons are not even the only religion with unusual garments (and orthodox jews are NOT the only other).
Usually the best way to react to this kind of thing is respectfully.
But, to answer your question, IF Beck has participated in the ceremonies in the Temple (generally open to "worthy" members who have been members for at least a year), then yes, he wears garments. Since he has been a member of the LDS Church for more than a year, I presume he does, but I have no way of knowing.
how do the mormons handle the skid marks?
I think JDD is right about Skousen. I'm aware of him- my Dad had many of his books in his library- but he is in no way current amongst the 25-45 year old set and I've never heard his work discussed in a church environment. So while he may have once been prominent, that time has long passed (until Beck resurrected his work), even amongst conservative Mormons (and I grew up in Provo as one and surrounded by them and still would probably be put in that category by most).
The church has never been referred to as Protestant by a knowledgeable source that I've read. They are a Restoration movement that doesn't acknowledge any legitimacy of the Catholic church, and therefore doesn't really fit any Protestant definition. I also think the article doesn't have to be read in such a way that she is defining the church as such.
The "if you put Jew" meme is getting pretty tired...
To MarkInAustin,
Interesting points. Perhaps my naive conception of what constitutes protestantism has been overly broad.
Regarding Skousen: Brooks says Skousen is "significant", which is not quite the same thing as saying he is famous or popularly known. Even if he really is as obscure as you say he is, it seems his ideas may be ripe for a surge in popularity, now that Beck is touting his books on his radio show.
I would have to agree with the above comments that Skousen is not significant. As a Mormon of 28 yrs, I've heard of him as one with some interesting/strange/fringe opinions, but his stuff is certainly not considered to be part of the religion. In fact, there are only a few writings that the church considers official doctrine i.e. that members are encouraged to read and learn/teach from. Glenn Beck can read and promote whoever he wants politically. Just like Harry Reid, he is one person and I hope nobody is naive enough to think that he represents and entire church. If you want to know the church is ACTUALLY teaching, rather than relying on ReligionDispatches' propaganda piece, go to mormon.org and find out for yourself before you judge.
If I may ask the Mormons here -how do you explain the belief that God the Father is or was a mortal man?
Would you mind commenting on the following
"""...the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:
"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is."
The God of the Bible is not an exalted man. The God of the Bible is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The Bible says He is the only God and there are no other Gods. He had no beginning or end and he is a spirit being and never was a man."""
that is one of the typical arguments against Mormonism being seen as a Christian denomination
Others have responded to your equestion. But I'm curious to know why you thought this was on topic for this article? Brooks didn't mention this in her article. And you can find answers in many different places on the Internet.
Shouldn't comments have at least some connection to the article?
Yes, they responded and proved to me by provinding info, etc. that Mormons are not Christian.
It is not the topic of the article, correct, it was a follow-up question, fully related to debate,considering what turn the whole conversation took.
so what? catholics believe in some queen of heaven. every religion has some phoney baloney in it. those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw rocks
This is NOT approved as official doctrine by the church. Most people would have you believe that it is, but it is only an opinion. It doesn't matter who wrote it/says it. Unless it's approved by the church, it cannot be considered representative of the church's actual teachings. To believe that God was just a simple, sinning human is actually offensive.
If you are truly interested in discovering why the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is perhaps the denomination which most closely fits First Century Christian theology, read:
http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com
If you are also interested in understanding why Jesus Christ gave temple ordinances to his Apostles and the 70 during the 40 days between his Resurrection and Ascension, and why those ordinances are practiced by only one denomination today, read:
http://NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com
i wish i had a nickel for every time a catholic told me to read catochism stuff to convince me of catholic trueness. now you want me to read mormon stuff to convince me of mormon trueness.of course catholic and mormon ltiurature will both speak of how wonderful they are and how jesus founded their church.so, what are we gonna do?
You have to be kidding.
According to the book of Hebrews in the Bible, Jesus Christ came to fulfill all the types of the temple rituals of the Old Testament. He came to make a change. He prophecied that the temple would be destroyed and it was 30+ years later, as history verifies. We no longer need temples today, because He changed the priesthood. No priesthood is needed today, as He alone is our Great High Priest. The priesthood was given only to the tribe of Levi. There are no Levites today and no one can trace their ancestry at all to any of the tribes of Israel today. Mormonism's priesthood is not legitimate according to Scripture. No where in the Bible does it teach that Christ taught mormon temple ordinances between his resurrection and his ascension. When the Christian and the Mormon define their commonly used "terms" the differnces become clear. Who is Jesus Christ? Christians say that He is God the Son, the 2nd person of the Trinity. Mormons say he is a god among many and that they can become a god just like him. They say he is the spirit brother of Satan and that he was born through sexual relations between God the Father and Mary. Who is God the Father? Christians say He is the only God. Read Isaiah 40 and onward...before Him no god was formed,neither shall there be after Him. (43:10) Mormons say "As man is, God once was, As God is, man may become"....They suddenly want to call themselves Christians, when this is what John Taylor said about Christians in his day, "“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense… it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” —John Taylor (3rd LDS Prophet), 1858, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 167. Mormonism does not resemble Christianity in any way, shape or form. It is a new "religion", an invention of Joseph Smith in the 1800's.
Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd Century: “we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods” Justin Martyr in mid 2nd Century said: “all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest” Jerome wrote that God "made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods." Clement of Alexandria said worthy men "are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior." Origen in reference to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 said "Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God . . As, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: "He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him," (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988) For further information on this subject, refer to http://NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) agrees with Early Christian church leaders regarding theosis.
To paraphrase Origin’s thoughts in the words of Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie: "There is and can only be one who is supreme, who is the head and to whom all others are subject". Becoming like God is not saying we will ever be equal to Him, frankly we won't and can't He, and only He, will forever be worshipped by us.
hey, i got an idea. lets put joe smith and Ratzinger in a boxing ring. ill join the church of the guy who wins
So if you claim something you cannot really claim, what is your point?
that as is typical, those who self-identify as Mormon also are using this forum to proselytize. Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" was the best eye-opener to Mormonism in general, because he gave an historical background about Joseph's Smith "revelations" including his magical spectacles and the seer stones he used to "translate" the so-called golden tablets. These are the same tools he used for water witching and other questionable activities. Recalls 2 Corinthians 11:14: "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light ..."
Um, perhaps there has been proselyting, but from what I can tell, it happened because some comments here asked questions (off-topic questions, I admit) about Mormon practice and doctrine.
If you don't want the proselyting, get people to stay on topic!
But, I have to observe that your comment does seem to assume that Mormonism is a fraud -- not exactly a fair starting place, IMO.
"those who self-identify as Mormon also are using this forum to proselytize"
Better here than at the door.
Millions of Mormons do not speak English, are not American (or, at least, not from the United States of America), have no particular interest in US politics, couldn't name two Founding Fathers, and wouldn't know Romney, Skousen, or Beck if they knocked on their doors.
Many more experience their religion very differently from the particular brand described in this article, including myself. Even among American Mormons, there are members of every political stripe. If you don't believe it, check the party affiliations of the Mormons who are members of Congress - they come from both parties.
It does nothing to foster insight or understanding to take one individual, hold him up as an example, and pretend that all of us are just like him. Mormons are no more all alike than journalists.
As for Mormons not wearing vestments, our heritage includes no connection to those churches in that tradition. We simply wear the attire typical of our cultures.
In spite of others' diligent efforts to jam us into boxes that don't fit, we don't consider ourselves Protestant, and we do consider ourselves Christian.
dsm, you are largely correct, but if you narrow your focus to Mormons in the U.S., I think Brooks has a good point. It certainly applies to a significant portion of members here in New York City, if not the majority.
BTW, I'm fond of tweaking conservative Mormons by pointing out that the majority of Mormons probably supported Barak Obama for President last year. Like most people here in the U.S., they assume I mean among Mormons in the U.S. instead of around the world, where Obama was favored by up to 80% or more of the population of most countries around the world.
So, yes, Brooks and others assume that we are discussing Mormons in the U.S.
dsm, you are largely correct, but if you narrow your focus to Mormons in the U.S., I think Brooks has a good point. It certainly applies to a significant portion of members here in New York City, if not the majority.
BTW, I'm fond of tweaking conservative Mormons by pointing out that the majority of Mormons probably supported Barak Obama for President last year. Like most people here in the U.S., they assume I mean among Mormons in the U.S. instead of around the world, where Obama was favored by up to 80% or more of the population of most countries around the world.
So, yes, Brooks and others assume that we are discussing Mormons in the U.S.
I don't care about Mormons, but any republican that is a Christian would not tell lies and hateful things the way Beck does. That is the big problem with republicans - they are hypocrites and act as though they are not Christians. Being a Christian is something that many in politics lose fast.
Beck is a sad man. He simply seems to lack depth.
hopefully55 - you don't watch Beck, do you? If you did, you would know that he isn't a republican; he declares himself an independent. He is, however, a conservative. BIG difference, especially these days...
Can you please be more specific about and perhaps give examples of the 'lies and hateful things' you accuse him of speaking? Otherwise, it sounds like you just don't agree with him. I'm curious, as I do agree with him and have heard nothing of the sort. Thanks.
It's impossible for a Morman to be a Christian based on the simple fact that the Mormoms do NOT belive in the Trinity, consequently, "no son", i.e, Jesus. Like the Jews, they may believe Jesus is a prophet, but certainly not "God."
For what it's worth, I really like Beck. He may have left his "Catholic Faith" that he never appears to have learned, but he can never escape his Catholic Baptism, which is where I think Beck is getting most of his "Holy Spirit Power." Considering his tragic life and brokeness, I could easily understand why God would " bring him back" via other means.
My gut tells me in time, Beck will return to Catholicism. For now, I think he's doing just fine, especially when so few American Catholics are even close to obedience to their faith as Beck is to his "Mormonism."
God rewards obedience and humility, and Beck is surely that. One could even wonder if he is fullfilling Sacred Scripture in that "God will use the foolish to humble the proud."
We can all learn a few things from Glenn Beck. He's a good man, and an amazing story of redemption.
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration? The Nicene Creed’s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one." Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. . Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. For example, it was an emperor (Constantine) . who introduced a term, homoousious, which defined the Son as “consubstantial” (one being) with the Father. Neither term or anything like it is in the New Testament. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” Furthermore, 11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts and the Founders.
yes, lets hope Beck comes back to the catholic church. he needs to be bowing to all our statues.
What do you mean he is a good man. He is an empty man. There is mothing to him.
My problem with Moromonisn is that it is boring. It just does not have much of a history. It violates experience, at least my expeirence. When I met Mormons, they are either cultural Mormons who obviously do not take its mythology seriously or young missionaries full of themselves.
I do know some local Mormons whom I like but I don't take their religion seriously. They cannot explain it.
Some time ago I read an article written by a Southern Baptist minister who proposed that maybe Mormons are the fourth Abrahamic religion. The other three being: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These three major religions hold that Abraham is their Father in Faith. I don't know enough about the Mormon religion to know whether Mormons recognize Abraham as their Father in Faith. I do know, though, that Mormons aren't Christian.
dont worry about it. mormons dont know what they are either. but, you cant throw rocks at them. which is worster? a religion that worships an con man named joe smith or a religion that worships some female queen of heaven. jesus warned that this stuff would come.
I appreciate Glenn Beck's strong moral stance and clear headed outspokeness, however I am saddened that he left the Catholic Church.
We would have found the same moral clarity as well as the fullness of Truth in the Church Jesus Christ, the Son of God founded himself.
Come back home to Rome, Glenn!
come back home to Rome? didnt rome make it its business to kill christians? come back home to Rome? that might be your home. jesus is where i will come back to.
im going to take it that you are a mormon. why dont you join the catholic church? they claim that there is no salvation outside the catholic church. that means your religion is a sham.mormon claims that they are the church of jesus christ. so, what are you gonna do?
Right now I am just trying to figure out what is going on here. Some of the comments on the page seem well thought out and considered, but others are really shallow and uninformed. What good are the latter?
Does anyone know where I can engage in a serene discussion about beliefs with a well-versed Mormon? I am not looking to convert or be converted. I am just trying to learn what they really do believe and why. (Not just them, by the way. More than anything I would like to find a well educated Muslim!)
hi, im not mormon but ive thumbed thru a book of mormon and been to a service. they believe jesus was an enlightened being from another planet and that good mormons get to rule over thier own planet when they die. But, women are the servants of men in heaven. it dont stop there. it gets much more bizzare. oh, and that they are gods chosen people for the end times.
If this is true then Mormonism really sounds pretty "cult-like" to me. Is this stuff true? Do Mormons believe these things? I need a serious Mormon to answer this. Because I am trying to understand how they can consider themselves in any way part of the Christian world if these are their beliefs. Only they can explain that.
The previous comments severely mischaracterize Mormonism. I would be happy to answer your questions.
charlesdayton@allwest.net
Let me suggest some web sites that might help.
LDS.org
Comprehensive collection of books, manuals, official statements, resources of various kinds offered by the Church.
mormon.org A good overview of the teachings and practices of the Church. Many short video presentations. A Question & Answer service where you can get live answers to your questions
http://www.youtube.com /view_play_list?p=5745E1B174BD9D48& search_query=mormon+channel (remove the spaces and paste)
Short youtube videos on a variety of topics
The statue of Mormonism as a Christian community does relate to this article. This is not a side issue.
As for Mormons being a church in the Restoration tradition, get real. It has no deep roots to that tradition. It is a new religion with some links to Christian history but still something new.
Naming Moromns Christian is like calling Olive Garden an Italian Restaurant. You can claim it, but the fruits are not the same.
If you are going to take the time to "blog" - to write something you want others to read - please be good enough to spell correctly,and maybe use the words you really intend to use. You can't be taken seriously if you don't!
There is so much false information in this article I'm not even going to waste my time addressing it. How do I know it's false? I've been a Mormon for 28 years while Brooks has simply stereotyped an entire religion in one post. She probably has never read The Book of Mormon or attended even one LDS meeting. If I were her, I would hesitate before spreading mindless propaganda and actually do some first-person research into what she's talking about. I feel sorry for people who read this article and take Brooks at her word, being left with no idea what Mormonism is actually about because they've only based their opinions on hearsay rather than actual investigation.
If you want to know what a religion thinks of itself, do the first person research. If you want a true picture of what the religion is, you must also talk to those who have left the religion and find out what they think the problem was. Since they are no longer under the group pressure, they might have a more rational take on things. Sometimes those most qualified to speak for a religion are those who have been excommunicated. Excommunication means those currently in the religion are told not to talk to that person.
Those who are excommunicated or purposely leave are obviously not in sync with the religion in the first place so how could they give a rational take on it? Her essay is tainted with bitterness and bias, much like what you would hear from a divorced person who looks back on their marriage. To get an accurate view, it's usually best to hear both sides and those who read this article are only being presented with one manipulative opinion. It's sad to me that people are going away from this thinking they've got some new inside understanding when in truth they now know even less about the religion because of it. Your ignorance about what excommunication proves my point. You have no idea what your talking about, but then again, how would you if you've never truly investigated the religion for yourself. As for group pressure, I've never felt it nor given it. There is no reason to.
I was trying to make a point about excommunication in general, I don't know the details of how LDS do it. Those who have left might have bitterness, but those who haven't left might be weak willed and just swollowing the groupthink. Many religions thrive on that kind of recruit and spread a wide net looking for those who are suggestable. The only way to get an accurate view is to listen equally to both the believers and the ex-believers, and try to filter out the bitterness on one side and the brainwashing on the other. Just be very careful if you are one of those people who are easily convinced.
If you don't know that details of the religion, maybe you shouldn't be commenting on it.
As per your assumption, based on the persecution of Mormons, both in the 1800's and what members experience today with Prop 8, it is obviously not a religion for the "weak willed". I had to make the point in a later comment that it's not easy to be LDS so it doesn't make sense that it would be the religion of choice for those who are "suggestable" or "easily convinced". Really, how easy is it to convince someone to give up smoking, alcohol, premarital sex, minimum of 3 hrs/wk of religious worship, 10% of their income, etc.? I'm sorry, but for most people, that doesn't fall under "easily convinced". Every fully practicing Mormon I know, (and I should know better than you considering that you don't attend the church) is willing to change their life for the better because of their belief in God. They strive to be honest, kind, hardworking, faithful, and charitable out their love and faith in God. If you want to call this kind of behavior brainwashing, I don't know what else I can say to you.
You and your fellow Mormons contribute 10% of their money to the church, they attend services a few hours per week and do missionary work while they are young. The church elders are not paid or are paid modestly. Everyone gives up smoking, alcohol, premarital sex, and I know you didn't mention it here but I have heard they also give up any source of caffine like coke or coffee. You all have dedicated your lives to God and have changed for the better. You are honest, kind, and charitable out of love for God and there is never any pressure on the group, at least you have never felt pressured. The church is generous with funding humanitarian aid, educational materials, missionary work, welfare and food for the poor. There is always reason and evidence behind mormon beliefs.
I don't know what else you could say. You might have already said too much. I guess I am just not in the market for a religion to tell me how great they are. In fact, if you guys toned down the missionary work and didn't try so hard to convince people, they might like you better.
Jim,
We try to be good people. I'm sorry you have a problem with that :)
ps. There are always going to be people that dislike religion and God. If we spent our efforts trying to be liked and accepted by everybody rather than doing what we thought was right, we'd be wasting our time and purpose
Dr Cti,
I understand what you are saying and Mormons are trying very hard to do what they think is right. I think ultimately what Mormons are doing is not trying to convince people to like them, but rather trying to convince people they are right. This is probably normal for a religion of a young age. LDS is young whereas Christianity is relatively old, and there might be a lesson in Christian evolution that could help you. Christianity used to be more evangelical in that they were trying to live the way they thought was right, and witness to the rest of the world for Jesus. Christianity is now splitting into two camps. "Evangelical" now means something more along the lines of hating everything about non-believers, and the rest of the Christians are just trying to stay a little more rational. This causes them to have doubts and they currently lack confidence to witness like they used to. I think the 21st century will end up being hard on religions that think they know God better than other people and try to recruit along those lines. The mormons still have time to change, they don't have to end up like the Christians.
Friend,
You are responding to Brooks with so much evident weakness. If you want to point out factual errors, do so. If you have a different opinion, express it. I believe Brooks was a Mormon. Do you really think she has never read the book of Mormon? Why are Mormons unable to answer questions from well-educated people?
One thing I have learned: if a person has decided to believe something strongly enough, no reason, no argument, no evidence of any kind, no matter how much the rest of the world sees it, will change their minds. My impression is that there are a lot of Mormons who cling to beliefs the rest of the world sees as totally absurd. And they do not seem to appreciate how they look in the eyes of others? A lot of "actual investigation" about Mormonism has been done. Are you allowed to study it? Are you able to address the problems without anxiety or fear of what you might find out?
Please point out my evident weaknesses, "friend". As far as the author being Mormon, you would know if you actually attended the church that there is a difference between going through the motions and actually believing in Jesus Christ and his gospel and living accordingly. Because the author notes that she used to be an "orthodox" Mormon (as if that should mean anything) and is using that as evidence for her derision of it predicts a lot about what she'll say and should be a red flag to readers.
As for the "one thing you learned", there is reason and evidence behind our beliefs, but that is not the point. If it were, then it can also be inferred that if a person believes "strongly enough" against Mormon beliefs "no evidence of any kind...will change their minds".
Concerning your impression that the world thinks Mormon beliefs are absurd and that we should be concerned about how we look to others, I have to laugh. Why would I put myself through that if I didn't see any evidence or reason behind my beliefs? It would be SO much easier to just deny it and fit back into the world. But I don't, for reasons that I guess you can't understand. Also, I don't believe that how I look to other people should rule my actions. I was raised not to be so shallow. And also to do the right thing, regardless of the judgments of others. I admit that I am one those old fashioned people who still think integrity is important :)
Not to belabor the point, but I knew Brooks at BYU. I'm sure she attended LDS meetings, given that she grew up in the Church. I'm also fairly sure she has read the Book of Mormon.
As an active LDS Church member, I see a lot of truth in the (admittedly) stereotype that she gives of Mormonism. While it dosn't exactly fit my experience, its pretty close.
There may be some truth in stereotypes, but stereotypes also helped get 19th-century Mormons mobbed, raped and killed and created unnecessary stumbling blocks for some politicians with LDS backgrounds (Smoot, Romney, etc). Let's not let the stereotypes build to the point where history repeats itself again, especially when once again the truth gets left standing on the sidelines. This opinion piece has now been quoted in the online NY Times.
If Brooks claims she was raised an "orthodox" Mormon and does not *clearly* state in her piece that she's speaking from her own experiences only, she gives the impression that she speaks for the experiences of other Mormons. Some of the comments already posted tell you that she does not speak for other Mormons. I add that she definitely does not speak for my experience. As an over 40, lifelong active member of the LDS church who grew up in Southern California, I felt the Holy Spirit on many occasions where the speaker was not choking up or crying. A speaker who is humble, yet direct in a message of truth still displays power when the Holy Spirit testifies to the audience. A manifestation of the Holy Spirit is caused by the communication of a member of the Godhead to our own spirits, not just by some person trying to force it on others by crying. That's what's taught in church and how the Mormons I met over 40 years understood it. Is it possible, that the Holy Spirit can bring someone to tears? Sure, but the presence of the Spirit can also produce feelings of love, joy and peace and these are not necessarily accompanied with tears. That bit about "appropriately-timed displays of tender emotion" is about manipulation, not displays of power and few of the many men that I met in the Church even tried those stunts (one was a drama major in college...lol). Is Glenn Beck trying to manipulate with his crying? Brooks can try to make that case, but without better evidence the connection to him crying because his Mormon religion taught him to do that is casual at best. It could very well be just Glenn Beck!
Founding Father worship? Not in any meeting I attended. We always worshipped and reverenced God the Father and Jesus Christ. We didn't pray to anyone else except God the Father in the name of Jesus, just as the Church has been teaching all along. Worship and reverence are words easily associated with prayer and if a non-LDS reader only had Brooks' piece to go by, the reader could easily think that Mormons pray to the Founding Fathers, which we don't. I well know of the references she's speaking of, but her explanation in this piece did not do them justice.
The "spiritual narratives" I've heard and read from Mormons say little about being financially sound unless they're talking about tithing or fast offering experiences, which aren't as commonplace as Brooks might make them out to be. Allergic to wealth? Sounds like a liberal opinion to me.
See the comment posted by John Brown October 28, 2009 at 8:57 PM. He makes a good point by saying there's lack of data supporting the assertions that Brooks makes on her blog. If she's going to give the impression that she speaks for other Mormons, she'd better have reliable data to back up her claims. I also agree with him that the "punishing sentimentality" storytelling is not exclusive to Mormons (successful movie franchises like Star Wars or the Bourne Identity are evidence that Americans love redemption stories).
Readers should go to www.lds.org or www.mormon.org or talk to several, trusted Mormon friends for the answers they want about Mormons.
I discovered Religion Dispatches through research on Glenn Beck. First, I want to say what a fascinating and useful site. Well done.
The article itself is very impressive...well-written and demonstrates sound understanding of the subject. I am a writer myself, deeply concerned about the impact of religion on society and as it now plays out in the political aspect of our lives...in government and in the perceptions of people who influence government...and thus, determine the quality of life and democracy for the rest.
This article was insightful and did a fine job of provoking thought...as such, it is a service offered to readers, take it or leave it.
Those who promote new thought and are unafraid of open examination are often met with defensiveness from those who take their journalism as provocative or threatening. The commentary on this blog began in a civil manner and deteriorated gradually into drivel, less so than on many other sites but nevertheless the human ego inserted both woundedness and irrational distraction.
Those who decry another person's religious views, naming Christ as their defense, are not as spiritually healthy as they might be. This is of concern to me as an American who greatly desires the people of this nation to unite in what Thomas Jefferson called "brotherly affection," a primary tenet of all religious teaching. Let's learn to aim for that, and resist viewing secular concerns through the lens of religious bias or protectionism.
Thank you for a responsible article.
Is some decay of the discussion the necessary result of having an honest discussion about religion? We have gone through a period of several decades, and perhaps much longer, where it was considered impolite to question. Now after things became so polarized during the Bush years, some of the questions are being asked and some of the discussions are started even if it is impolite. Some people don't want things questioned so they try to degrade the conversation into insults so that the conversation becomes less meaningful. I think all you can do is read past the personal insults and try to read the real points being raised on both sides. Also you can skip over those posts made for the purposes of ending on a link to an advertising website by multilevel marketers or whatever.
I would not say it is a necessary result, but given the immensity of a perpetual human condition-- that of being a slave to our own beliefs--a shift to defensiveness and vitriol when it comes to religion often becomes an inevitable result. My comments were meant to reflect our collective need and longing to bridge the alienation between people, which can only occur with the maturation of our psyches. We cannot learn when we defend because when we defend we do not listen. We cannot find our commonality when we assert our particular philosophy is right and the other is wrong: judgment walls off love, something that all people desire from their deepest core. I am suggesting that through an awareness of what we are doing to ourselves and each other when we attack over belief, we can choose to change what we do, and that can bring peace and understanding of one another to our discourse and into our lives. It is ironic that a hallmark of a civilized society is philosophy, yet the conflict over philosophy is what has throughout history made us most uncivilized toward one another.
Your point about raising questions is excellent...suffice it to say, that a necessary revelation of multiple deceptions in our lives is revealed by our learning to ask questions and more specifically, the right questions. From a sociological perspective, we have been conditioned to not ask questions nor to challenge authority. This is why many defend the indefensible, because they have been soundly conditioned to do so. A fundamental requirement to change our world and achieve happiness requires that we question freely, so that the deceptions that cause us to suffer have no more power over our lives. Thus, a contemporary degradation of dialogue and behaviors is a symptom of that which is breaking apart--painfully and with resistance--to make way for something better. The growth of the psyche hurts and as people are confronted to face their delusions, individual and collective, they will protest. As you say, sometimes by attempting to make the conversation less meaningful.
The one principle human beings have not had a collective opportunity to discover is the power and authority they have within themselves to make a better world. As having looked to religion or in the case of politics, a Big Daddy to guide them, they have been stuck in an immature mindset, even if as in the case of Mormons it turns out to be an endearing sweetness of a child. Societies have conditioned people to claim an external authority as their own and by questioning the authority they have chosen to guide them, they will by virtue of identification take it as a personal affront. History is rife with the grief this has caused.
You are so correct to allude to the problem of politeness in our society...it is a plague of conditioning meant to squelch open dialogue. Yet, you will probably note the irony that while we are shaped in such a way to allow the powerful more control over our lives, our society suffers from impoliteness in other ways. --Frustration that blasts out sideways, because the "lid on the pot" has been fastened more tight. The force of life within people is ever in motion and needs to be free. The push toward conformity is another way to restrict the personal power of the individual, leading to a sense of powerlessness...that will squelch the individual's sense of having the right to question. When power wants more power, it works on all fronts to lessen the sense of power within the individual. The need to question means one is still alive inside. I wholeheartedly agree that questioning needs to "go viral."
Last, if we want to be of service to our world...bring in goodness, or manifest the divine, as we call it...we need to be on higher ground to lift others up. Be assured that my commentary was meant to encourage thought in all of us, not to complain or to suggest mere distaste.
We have to get to the details, and that starts with what are the questions that a discussion on a religion website should handle. I think the first question should be the biggest one, at least the biggest for Christianity.
My question is what about the damage caused by a doctrine of destruction being needed for the world, many hope in our lifetime, and the need for all of the others (not saved or raptured) to suffer? How much damage does this doctrine cause in a world situation where the religious have political and military power? How much damage does this doctrine cause to the religion that believes it? How much damage does this belief cause to the individual believers? Does this doctrine make Christianity the most dangerous of all the world's major religions? Not all Christians stress the doctrine, but the others also don't actively oppose it. They don't condemn Christian Zionism. They don't warn the people about the problems with religious fiction such as the Left Behind series of books and the children's version of that series. Is it good enough that many Christians are now trying to be uninvolved in politics, and only a minority of them are activly encouraging war with Iran? Since Christianity doesn't police itself, does this doctrine end up poisioning them all?
Your higher ground is your post to encourage further discussion of the discussion. Hopefully we can make it up that step.
Good observation, Jim. I wonder if you would agree that the total fiction in The DaVinci Code does much to make non-Catholics (Christian or not) hold the Catholic Church in deep suspicion or worse.
Regardless, it seems to me a horrible scandal to the world that those who say they believe in Christ can be so quick to judge and condemn those who do not agree with them. This is not true of all. I have always believed in Christ, and I was taught (by that infamous Catholic Church) to pray for everyone and ask God to bless everyone and to bring everyone to ultimate salvation and happiness. This "end of the world is near" doctrine is a total fiction created in the uniquely American experience of Christianity which has never had a stable foundation in the first place. It is nothing other than a popular myth rooted in a few scriptures that are being interpreted in a very odd way. God save us from those who do these things!
Everyone knows The DaVinci Code was just fiction. It doesn't have a dedicated following who know it is fiction but believe the authors were inspired by God like the LB series. Any people who hold the Catholic church in suspicion already did so before that book came out.
Jim, your question lifted my spirit and generates hope because it is, in our time, absolutely a right question. --Not because I say so, but because in this age of sophisticated weaponry our collective survival can easily hang precariously in a moment of decision, which decisions would be be ultimately influenced by someone's philosophy or religious belief.
Insofar that what we believe is like a subrosa program running in the back of our minds, influencing the choices we make every day, a widespread "end time" mindset in any powerful nation has profound consequences on everyone under the umbrella of its influence...
It seems the belief in a punishing diety who spares the favored and destroys the rest has been prevalent throughout history as people have designed and applied their gods to give them victory over circumstances, whether in war or in the hunt for food. It would change everything if people were educated about the repeating themes of history, and the repeated cycles of the human condition. We cannot change what we do not understand.
Which should cause us to ask, why are we not educated? What forces at play seek to keep human beings in darkness? If truth is power...and it is...then those in power apply their agendas to keep others ignorant. This is a huge implication in all of our lives, for if we were to know how much deceit covers the planet, everything would change forever.
Believers in the end of days will tend to relinquish a significant personal responsibility, for if all we have to do is profess allegiance and the inevitable is to follow, then why try to thwart inevitable fate? If we are forgiven for transgressions of all kinds for merely relying on the death of another...sacrifice being a universal theme throughout history...then why apply oneself toward genuine betterment, i.e., service to others and striving for peace? How can we bridge our differences, anyway, if there is only one absolute "right" way to live...others be damned? Does this not reveal itself to be a way of wasting the minutes and hours of our precious lives, doing nothing while waiting to be delivered? How much human potential is wasted by surrendering all that we are and could become to fated philosophy? How much good is left undone? How many suffer because those whose hands god uses will not extend their efforts because it will not matter in the long run, anyway? If the end game is belief and that belief must be fiercely protected to be chosen and saved, is it any wonder people will choose to die because they fear losing a belief? --A belief they equate to the salvation of their souls?
Who and what has perpetrated these beliefs? While a subject too large for this, we should be asking about the nature of non-human intelligence interactions with humanity since the dawn of history, and the perpetuation of religions that do not inspire brotherhood because the bottom line is division, war, separation, and strife.
Fundamentalism is dangerous in every aspect of definition: Christianity, Islam, whatever. And many of us fail to recognize the motivator behind the promotion of extremism is money and power, not in the unsuspecting believers who seek to find god, but by those who manipulate their longings and take advantage of an all-or-nothing mindset.
We should have many forums discussing the very questions you raise. These questions are the guardians to a gate of true knowledge about the history of humankind, and the forces that govern our lives.
All the best to you, friend. I'm glad you're around, asking these questions. You are doing your part to make us all better, and make the world safer. Thanks.
"we should be asking about the nature of non-human intelligence interactions with humanity since the dawn of history"
Naomi,
What does that mean, and can we be sure asking about that won't lead to another new religion of separation and strife?
I think the answer to the intelligence issue is science. Science has no basic assumptions, anything can be questioned, and scientists put a priority on tearing apart the ideas of other scientists. The only thing that survives is those few concepts that stood the test and couldn't be destroyed, so they form a sound basis for further developments. Religion works by setting up a system of beliefs and a rule that the beliefs can't be challenged. It puts most of its energy and resources into making sure nobody breaks that rule. It works best by sticking with beliefs that can't be proved or disproved because then it has nothing to fear from science, but as science advances into new territory clashes are set up and religion must resist. As the battle becomes more pitched, the safest thing is to bet on heresy because historically it has a great track record.
Well, Jim, I love your thought on heresy.
The subject of non-human intelligence (NHI) influence in human affairs is huge...it is, perhaps, central to the human experience. I have studied this for more decades than most people have been alive, and one thing is certain: the more you learn, the less you know! ...Just kidding. There is certainly that stage in a depth of search when one is confronted with such hugeness, it is beyond the reach of mortal mind...
Have you ever noticed that people cannot abide ambiguity? People are compelled to get the "black and white" of matters, to know "why." And because people demand relatively basic explanations of immensity, they will construct paradigms to explain things.In a profound pursuit of spiritual awareness, one must learn to live with ambiguity. It's not hard to understand why, when one takes a moment to realize that eternity is indeed a very large subject and that is necessary to resist the demand to "get to the bottom line" so we can just get on with our lives. We tend to need religion and belief for rather selfish reasons, really, we want to know "the game plan" so we can put god in a proper place and go about doing what we want to do. So seldom, except perhaps for mountain monasteries,do people allow time, contemplation and experience guide their understanding of what we can consider divine.
NHI encompasses all human interaction with unknown intelligent forces. This happily wends us back to the subject of this article: Mormonism, (a "contactee" experience, according to some) as well as every other major religion. For countless ages people have asserted communication with god(s), angels, spirits, etc. and depending on the culture of origination, this can include altered-state beings as experienced by shamans or UFO experiences or states of epiphany, stigmata, etc.
And you are absolutely correct: these interactions have led to religions of all types, to war, strife, and conflicts over those beliefs built around the experience.
Let me lend a little comfort by sharing that consciousness is a powerful force and that people interpret these universal experiences in different ways, according to their cultural influences and personal development. As we center ourselves in genuine love, rooted in the pursuit of truth for truth's sake and no other reason, we can become insulated against the manipulation or misunderstanding that often results from NHI contact.
Let's consider also, that perhaps today's science has become its own kind of religion. They are not as different as we might initially think, for both have their own dogma and hallowed halls with priests who dictate or define the truth for others, rather than point the way. Although we can find what appears to be solid ground in the scientific method, it has its own weaknesses, although certainly we can be very thankful for it and thankful for the tremendous progress it's provided us. Now if we can only learn to seek, ask, and wait...and learn that spiritual matters cannot be digested quickly, and that some things may never be known or fully understood.
We can ask and learn about this religion of science, but waiting might be a problem. Science seems fast when you look at their accomplishments. one hundred years ago, how did Einstein see the changes to our understanding that would come from the speed of light? How did he conclude that the most perfect thing at that time, Newton's understanding of gravity, was slightly off in imperceptable ways? How did Darwin put his observations of nature into an overall grand picture of all of life, past and present, and overturn the rest of what we might call non-scientific intelligence? Science doesn't wait, it seems it can turn on a dime when required, and non-scientific intelligence is extremely slow, it can barely move except under extreme force pushing on it from the march of time.
I think there is also an element that many sociological/religious groups miss. It's the whole idea that there is a major difference between America's individual culture and the collective culture that many religion's attempt to develop. In America, we are asked to question everything, have opinions and think for ourselves. Those that don't do this are seen as ignorant.
I am actually mormon and deeply believe in the idea of thinking for yourself, question everything, learn for myself attitude. Everything that comes out of our leader's mouths, I pray about, find out if it is true for myself and then make a decision based on the results. If you don't do this - then you are in the truest definition of the word "ignorant".
Beck is not a leader of our church, neither is Mitt Romeny, John Huntsman, or Marriott. They are members of our church just like John F. Kennedy was a member of the catholic church... not a leader.
One thing I have found really interesting in our church as it grows in other cultures is how it pushes group cultures (collective cultures) to become more individualistic and pushes individualistic cultures more collective. It really makes you wonder if the happy medium is somewhere in the middle.
Thank-you Joanna, for explaining Beck in such a way that the general public can understand the correspondence between his opinions and Mormonism. It seems so obvious to those of us who grew up Mormon, saturated in the fear-based politics of John Birch, Cleon Skousen, and Erza Taft Benson. We forget that the rest of the world may not see the connections. You are uniquely positioned to explain how Beck's persona does or doesn't fit with Mormonism culture of masculinity, of which Mitt Romney is a prime example. I think you're right that Beck's "renegade persona" may endear him to (some) Mormon men who identify with Beck but have learned not to publicly attach their names to the kind of rageful, fear-mongering, bombastic sentiments that he spews so calculatingly.
Only in the United States, with its incredibly complex and unstable spiritual history, could a religion like Mormonism be started and then endure. It is only understandable in the context of endless denominational multiplication and strife, as well as the radical American sense of individualism.
Only in America could we get Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventists, Lutheran and Episcopal churches embracing homosexuality, and 20,000 other sects that claim they have finally figured out the true message of Christ that everyone else has always got wrong! All done with the certainty that God has spoken for the last time and He finally has made it all clear! No wonder non-believers laugh at and mock those who practice religion!
How many of those 20,000 turned out to be suicidal like the People's Temple, Branch Dividians, and the group that killed themselves to meet up with Jesus on the passing comet? As Americans I am sure we are blind to the deeper meaning of these things, but what must the rest of the world think of us? I bet when they looked at our stockpile of WMDs they were really freaked when we had Bush for our president.
Yes, I did.
Peoples Temple (Disciples of Christ). Remember that Peoples Temple was a congregation within a mainline denomination. Do not forget that.
Mainline churches can and do produce some awful congregations.
Americans also invented one religion that did turn out pretty well, Reform Judaism. Perhaps there could be an American solution to our religion problem and we could come up with more reforms, like Reform Scientology, Reform Mormons, Reform Catholics. Even Reform Branch Dividians would have been a great idea, but it might now be too late.
Mormonism is a cult. There is only one version of Christianity, it is the Church of the Yeshuaim. The Yeshuaim Follow Yeshua. The Hebrew Name of Jesus Christ is Yeshua. Some man changed His Name to Jesus. Some man changed the Christian church and made it the way he wanted it, namely Catholicism in the beginning. The Mormons are money-mongers. They support one another and destroy anyone else they can. They will take a job away from a Christian and give it to one of their own, regardless of who is the more qualified. They will demand money without Mercy. I AM Yeshuaim. I AM Taught by the Lord God Almighty, Himself. (That statement is from Scripture! and is straight from Isaiah). How I Love the Lord God Almighty. A True Christian doesn't baptize the dead. Baptism by water is a conscious decision made by the participant. A True Christian doesn't marry the dead. Marriage is for those living out this earthly physical life. We are Married to our Spiritual husband/wife (there is only one) by God Himself and live out Eternity with that other Soul. Very few people find their Spiritual husband/wife in this lifetime. Actually, Scripture states that in the End of the Age, and we clearly about 3/4 of the way through the End of the Age, those who are Married will live as though they are not. In my dealings with Christians over the past 50 years, and especially since I was married myself, the Mormons are the religious group that treats family the best. The Baptists and Lutherans, treat family the worst. The Mormons along side the Baptists are the most greedy, the most focused on money. Money is the primary Mormon downfall, as you can tell by this article. Adultery runs a close second for Mormonism. I won't get into that one here... I would say that the man in this article wasn't Strong enough to make it to the end of his own, private tribulation, so he succumbed to seduction... the seduction of a woman, like Adam in the Garden of Eden. Sit back, sometime, and watch how the Mormon women seduce men, especially other women's husbands. This is not just a Mormon woman thing, it is a mankind christian thing. So-called christian women leave something to be desired when it comes to treating men with respect. Whether that man is married or not, he has a "wife" Chosen for him. He just has to pray that God will show her to him. And then... Wait, until God says, "It's Time. Go get your Wife!"
Does this church use the cross symbol as most of Christianity does? Is their day of worship on Sunday or some other day?
For Reference: Here is the only known contemporary account of Joseph Smith's discourse which contains an oblique reference to the statement Constitution to Hang by a Thread. Additional sources are also cited in the post.
I have been a Mormon for over 35 years. I also happen to be highly involved in politics and highly aware of political topics. In all my years as a member of the LDS Church, I have never, EVER, even once heard a reference to Cleon Skousen or his theories in any church meeting. Ever. It just doesn't happen. The idea that Cleon Skousen is a "significant figure" in the "deeply insular world of Mormon thought and culture" is pure bunk. This is simply inaccurate. Nobody who actually understands mainstream Mormon thought or culture would write this. Sorry Joanna Brooks, your credibility is shot. You sound like a disaffected former Mormon with an axe to grind. I respect your right to grind it, but don't pretend to be some sort of unbiased, or even well-informed expert on the subject.
I can relate to this. As a young boy attending public school I was walking home alone one day when a couple of young men approached me an asked if I knew about Jesus Christ. When I told them that I was Catholic and that I was learning (seeing as how we never stop), I was quickly informed that I was being taught lies and that "the devil is keeping you from the truth!" I was deeply disturbed by this and decided to keep walking. I found out later that they were mormons. In my teens and when I finished college I had similar experiences whereby I was automatically judged (and quite harshly as well as literally) by several groups of mormons simply because I didn't subscribe to their brand of religion. Now, I've read the Bible several times and try as I might I can't find any single phrase or reference that says mormonism is the right religion or that they have the right to openly condemn others in such a harsh way. It simply doesn't wash! However, there are phrases and instructions from Christ Himself that very clearly command us to, "Judge not, lest ye yourselves be judged." In agreement with this I have always believed and will continue to believe that God alone is the sole authority on making judgments. I seriously pity and pray for all mormons who would presume that they can replace God. As for Joseph Smith's dream when he was but 14 years old and alone at the time of his dream? Even if there were a shred of reality to it, I doubt very strongly that he'd approve of how his devotees have turned out. Thankfully, for society's sake, Joseph Smith is NOT God and never will be. Nor do I believe in the very twisted ideals that Joseph Smith and/or any of his devotees are appointed to sit at God's right hand in judgment of the rest of us. The mormons have a lot to learn about humility, sacrifice. feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, tolerance, etc., all of which are qualities that Christ Himself taught His true followers to practice regularly and to teach others. On the segregated and very secular world of moromonism I have yet to see any of this put into practice. People are NOT possessed by the devil simply because they don't believe in the mormon principles or ideologies. Most people are just more open minded instead of believing the evil dream of a 14 year old that, for many, holds no substance of truth.
Read the Church Fathers,(Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, etc.)some of whom were taught by an apostle, if you want know what the early Church believed.
And with such I title I commit the same error Brooks does on numerous occasions in her blog.
Just because a number of people from a given group exhibit a given behavior doesn't mean it's representative of the majority of the group OR that it's exclusive to that group.
Do you know how many published Mormon fiction authors are out there? How many books? She selects 4 books out of thousands and claims this represents quintessential Mormon literature.
Did Brooks ever take a stats class? Alas, it appears she did not.
Furthermore, is this "punishing sentimentality" exclusive to Mormons? No, it's widespread throughout the US. The popularity of Chicken Soup For The Soul franchise and Reader's Digest attests to that. Has she not read any Edgar Guest? Does she not recevie any of the sentimental emails that constantly circulate the internet?
So since this sentimentality isn't exclusively Mormon, and since she doesn't provide any evidence it appears at an above average level among Mormon fiction authors, how can she say that Beck's fiction isn't a product of one strand of mainstream US literary taste?
Brooks makes the same mistake with her Mormon tears assertions, her Cleon Skousen / Ezra Taft Benson comments, and her assertion that Mitt Romney is the Mormon ideal.
She provides no numbers. No data. Just wild assertions. And a quote by some supposed authority. Quotes always make things look official, even if the person being quoted uses the same kind of mushy thinking.
Of course, Brooks was raised an orthodox Mormon so she should know, right? She knows all them Mormons.
Oh, wait--that's another sampling error.
Ironically, I heard about this article / post because Beck brought it up on his show. A perfect example of what Beck really is... a "Me" Guy.
Our church's ideology is already set up for people like Beck because we're supposed to believe that after he accepted the truth and converted, God started shooting his magic down to manipulate Gabe Hobbs and others to make him a superstar "entertainer." In other words, Beck literally thinks he's one of the priesthood holders prophesied to save the constitution and America (which is, of course, hanging by a thread).
I listen to his radio program most days and am surprised by how much of what he says that's right out of Mormonism (a term which I mean broadly, with respect to both cultural and doctrinal artifacts of Mormonism). If you're a real LDS, you should be offended (conservative or not) that he's hijacking Mormon thought to promote - not so much conservatism, as himself. Beck is a "me" guy. It's all about him. Anyone on here listen to him daily? "I'm on the cover of Time", "I went to the oval office to meet with Bush", "I'm one of the worst people in Forbes?!?!", "I'm being watched by the Whitehouse", ""They" are coming after me", "I'm at the top of NY Times best seller list again", "Third most-listed-to talk show in America." Every time I turn him on he's got at least a few segments talking about "Me, Me, Me." He does, of course, always try to make us feel like Beck = Us too, but who among us is that dumb?
Beck's a very funny guy and most of the time he’s likable, but only in a frat boy, "yuck-yuck" sort of a way. He's clearly not bright and anyone with a shred of self respect should find more humor in him personally than in what he says.
Besides, there's a reason he's too cowardly to debate any liberals - too easy to hang up & run away while laughing. I'm laughing too Glen, but at you; not with you.
LiberalAmerican said: If you're a real LDS, you should be offended (conservative or not) that he's hijacking Mormon thought to promote - not so much conservatism, as himself
Um, if Mormonism was the latest bling bling in all the big social circles, then I could buy this argument. If there were tens of millions of Mormons in the US, then maybe I could entertain the idea that he was pandering to them to increase his viewership.
But,
It just ain't so. I don't see how his Mormonism is going to attract viewers. If anything, it turns a certain segment of potential viewers off (Hi there, James Dobson).
Listen to his show. If you know anything about Mormonism and listen; it's clear.
Besides, he draws a huge LDS audience and if you haven't noticed... he gets along quite well w/ the other theocrats. (Hi there, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved)
Rush gets along with Medved and Hannity. All conservatives do. That really doesn't mean too much. Why don't you give an example? I still don't see how Mormonism is going to attract viewership.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.