Just to make something clear,

Referencing yesterday's post, I'm not necessarily trying to debate Mormon theology. That could be another post for another day. What I simply want to point out is that Mormons want it both ways. They claim "we're not heretics, we're Christians just like all the others! We believe in Jesus, too!" But when you peel away that veneer, you find that the gulf is much wider indeed. You find that they do ascribe to some of the greater heresies out there.

Now, we could debate whether the heresies are actually the Truth, I suppose. Mormons could say "when the Church made such-and-such decision at this-and-so council, they were wrong." And I would assume that, within the halls of Mormon-dom, they must actually say those things, since the Council of Nicea clearly declared heresy the teaching that Jesus and the Father are NOT of the same substance (which is a basic Mormon belief). But in public, they are guilty of doublespeak, claiming to be "just like all the other Christians" while holding to beliefs that are not just different, but heretical.

The question for the day is not whether their beliefs are right or wrong; the question is whether or not they'll be forced to go more public with their differences, bringing their beliefs into the spotlight for all to see. Then we would at least be able to have a level conversation, discussing the real differences and the validity of the Mormon viewpoint. We could better understand Mr. Romney, and perhaps even respect his willingness to be transparent in his beliefs before all the world. Instead, it feels again like the plumb saying "I'm an orange because I grow on a tree just like oranges!"
_________________

Curious about Mormons?

One of the things I've learned from my (granted, somewhat limited) experience with those who call the Mormon Church home is that they are gifted at misdirection. They play like smoke, shifting and dodging in order to avoid the tough questions, hoping to win you over with their good values and nice personalities. Often, after attempting to have extended conversations with Mormons, I've felt that old adage "style over substance" applied very well. Not that they weren't sincere. And I don't even think they were truly lying to me. It's just that they realize some of their cherished beliefs are somewhat controversial, and they'd rather not bring those things into the public eye.

So when you challenge them on the Book of Mormon's validity, they respond "The Book of Mormon isn't on trial here. . ." But when you ask for proof as to the historical validity of Mormonism, they point you to the Book of Mormon.

When you attempt to point out the massive gulf between Christian orthodoxy and Mormon theology (heresy?) they'll say "We're not here to prove this to you. You just need to read the Book of Mormon, pray that God speaks to you, and see if you get a Burning in your Bosom." And then there are the times I've challenged Mormon missionaries on Mormon doctrines that they themselves were unaware of. Perhaps they even keep their own people in the dark about certain theological positions they hold.

Mormons want to be seen as mainstream, as just another branch of Christianity, and they present themselves as such. Yet they never really want to get into the nuts and bolts of things, where they are truly quite far away from historical Christianity. Reference the article I reviewed a few weeks ago, where a Mormon elder went to great pains to say "we're not heretics!" only to espouse some of the oldest and greatest heresies ever rejected by the Church.

So now Romney has delivered what may come to be known as his "Mormon" Speech. And I have no doubt about his sincerity, or the passion with which he follows his Mormon faith. I'm also not convinced that his Mormon faith automatically disqualifies him as a candidate I would vote for (note: I'm not planning on voting for Romney, but for reasons other than his faith).

What I am curious about is how all this publicity will affect the Mormon Church. They are getting the light shown on them, perhaps like never before. For an organization that tends to work in the shadows, this is a coming-out party for them. So far, the smoke-and-mirrors still seems to hold sway. They aren't dealing with the substance of Mormonism; instead, people are simply lauding Romney for sticking to his convictions (One Southern Baptist said the speech was "Kennedyesque"), or rejecting him because those religious convictions stand against their own agendas.

At some point, will somebody actually bring out the substance of what Romney is giving credence to? Will somebody point out that to accept Mormonism means to accept the fact that we all pre-existed as spirit children, that our souls were deposited into our fleshly bodies when we were born, and that if we live good Mormon lives we get to spend eternity populating another planet with our good Mormon spouse(s)?

In other words, will the conversation reveal the unsavory aspects of Mormonism, bringing it all into the light of day?

Or, will Mormons be forced to rethink their more "interesting" beliefs in this new light, perhaps rejecting some of them and moving ever more closer to True Christianity?

Or, will Americans never ask those tough questions, because they're too excited about the Spice Girls reunion tour?

Where the Conversation Breaks Down

On Sunday, someone handed me an article from the November 12 U.S. News and World Report, in which they interview one of the Mormon Church's Council of Twelve Apostles - the LDS governing body. Its tied in with the discussion relating to Mitt Romney's Mormon Faith. In the article, Elder M. Russell Ballard answers a series of questions posed by USN&WR reporter Jay Tolson.

In reading the interview it's easy to see why dialogue breaks down so quickly between Christians and Mormons. Whether Mr. Ballard is disingenuous or clueless is tough to tell, but his answers to the questions show that he just doesn't get it.

- He quickly denies the "heresy" charge, and then glibly states that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities (read: not one Triune God). It's interesting to read how he spins it: This is what most people think anyway. Of course, not those theologians, but average people think just like us!

- The scripture question gets posed, and he quickly spins it by saying they don't deny the Bible, they just add the Book of Mormon. I've never head this one before, but he mentions that "the Book of Mormon has more references to Christ and his teachings and his words than are in the Bible."

- And he works really hard to convince us all that Mormons are Christians, just like the rest of us (well, except maybe they're even better Christians because they are true to the apostolic church).

The point here is not to debate Mormon theology, nor the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon. We could do that another place. The point is that Mr. Ballard makes these claims: Mormons are Christians, Mormons aren't heretics, and Mormons use the Bible as a sacred book. Then he denies some of the most basic tenets of Christianity, he espouses heresy, and he glowingly speaks of a book that flatly contradicts the Bible.

This, I think, is why we have such a hard time talking to one another. They keep saying "but we're Christians just like you!" and then they cavalierly spout off anti-Christian beliefs. And when Christians try to point these things out, they have their list of bullet points as to why they actually are Christians just like everybody else. As if shouting it enough makes it true.

It's like saying to a squash "you're not a potato" and having the squash reply, "ah, but I am a potato!"

So what I wonder is whether they are simply great at spin (as in, do they understand the power of marketing), or do they truly believe they are Christians Just Like Us, and have to resort to all this spin just to make sense of their own worldview?