The Heritage Foundation blog looks at religious entrepeneurship.  As a person whose theology is very important to him, I find this a little bit wearying.  Eventually a church will cease to be anything meaningful in the midst of such theological diversity.  One view of the CJCLDS is that it may be the ultimate expression of religious entrepreneurship, though I am sure Lowell and his brethren will be as offended at the designation as I am.  Nonetheless, such a concept and competition is decidedly American, and an excellent argument for not excluding a candidate on the basis of religion.  After all there are "true believers" in Coke and Pepsi too, but we hardly decide who to vote for based on their preference between the two.

Lowell:  Would it not be offensive to refer to the apostles Paul or Peter as "religious entrepreneurs?"  It certainly rubs me the wrong way.

A bit on political positioning, pleasantly devoid of any mention of religion.

USnooze (apologies Rush!) intimates the now infamous 1994 debate YouTube video was Democratic oppo work.  Pure rumor.  Besides I wouldn't put it past the Dems to take credit for primary opponent's oppo work, as long as we're spreading rumors.

In The Agora is one of the better blogs by Christian young people out there and it centers around my home state of Indiana, focusing on politics.  However, yesterday they made what I consider to be a fundamental mistake.  In examining the position of the CJCLDS on abortion they turned to an on-line resource which self-describes as "Challenging the Claims of Mormonism since 1979."  Regardless of one's agreement or disagreement with Mormonism, if one wants to know the stance of that church on any issue, wouldn't it be better to turn to the writing of that church?  At a minimum, wouldn't a better approach be to turn to a source that does not admittedly have an axe to grind against the church?

Lowell politely interjects:  That's always been one of my cardinal rules in attempting to understand other religions.  And the Church's official position is right here.

It's a bit like asking Nancy Pelosi what the Republican position is on the war in Iraq.  You're going to get an answer, but you can count on the fact that it is going to be spun like good wool to get precisely the result desired, as opposed to the one that most accurately reflects reality.  Frankly, I have not researched the official CJCLDS position on this matter much, but the Mormons I know are all staunchly pro-life, including Governor Romney.  One must suspect that given the self-description of the site ITA links to, they will be most interested in making the LDS position appear somehow antithetical to the generally accepted creedal Christian position.

To rely on such sources when more direct, primary sources are available (lucky me, all I have to do is send Lowell an email) one must assume that the direct Mormon sources we have are predisposed to being less than truthful.  Isn't such the very definition of prejudice?  Besides, it's not like we creedals will be contaminated somehow by reading Mormon sources.  Much to Lowell's disappointment , I've read a lot of it in the last year and it hasn't convinced me a wit.

Lowell:  In the words of a wise man, John, it ain't over 'till it's over.

This does give us an opportunity to introduce a silly little game we want to play here.  We are going to, from time to time, begin rating things we run into on a "Jell-O scale" as to anti-Mormon bigotry or bias.  If you are late to the table, we have explained the Jell-O thing before.  A light blue Jell-O cube will indicate a post or article that is very mildly biased.  A dark blue Jell-O cube will indicated definite bias.  A yellow Jell-O cube will indicate beginning to slip into the bigotry zone.  A red Jell-O cube will be a full-fledged bigotry attack.

With that in mind we rate Seth Zirkle's In The Agora post  :!!: - we'll give Seth the benefit of the doubt perhaps he was just lazy looking around the internet for a resource.  Besides, I've never met Seth, but I've met his co-blogger Josh Clayborn and he's a good guy.

As to the Mormon Research Ministry piece they get a  :!!!:  It has enough scholarship to not be completely iditotic, but definitively has an axe to grind. 

Late add by John:  Be sure and check the comments where ITA author Seth has clarified himself.  I'd take away his light blue Jell-o cube, but that would blow the whole introducing the idea thing.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”
• I Guess This Is Adieu . . . for Now
• Short and To-The-Point
• Since Lowell Brought It Up…