Article VI Blog

This story on Mormon baptism for the dead showed up everywhere yesterday.  This is not a new practice for the CJCLDS, so one is forced to ask , "Why now?"  Any answer would be conjecture, so I will demure, but it is in the MSM.  What is really sad is that the story's filing, and in some cases wording, amounts to ridicule.  It has come out in the "Odd News" lists.  How many religious practices of how many religions could be so filed?  So, one must not only ask, "Why now?" but also "Why this way?"

Lowell:  Just one comment:  The story emphasizes the odd behavior of individuals who are not following the Church's rules regarding these baptisms.  I can take any exotic doctrine of any church and make that church look silly by exposing the behavior of those who twist or abused that doctrine.  We may see lots of this during the upcoming campaign.

Michael Medved opines that now "Mormon" = "Mitt" but soon it will be but a footnote.  He's right to a point, but there are parties interested in keeping the equation alive.

OK, let's get this straight, there are differences, big differences, in Mormon and creedal theology.  No sensible person claims differently.  So, why is this a "warning"?  The only reason I can think of is fear of the other on the part of the "news service" and bitterness on the part of the former Mormon subject of the story.  The only thing that comes near "a warning" is the "threat" that a Romney presidency would help legitimate Mormonism.  Well, an Obama presidency would help legitimate bi-racial cigarette-smoking, religiously-confused democrats, so what?

Lowell:  If one wants to know what a church believes, go to the church, not to its critics.

A vote for Obama from this blogger just isn't in the cards, but I do hate bigotry in all its forms.  The guy is a United States Senator for crying out loud, haven't we moved past stuff like this?

Discussing the Faith-Based Initiative.  I'm becoming less of a fan as time moves forward.  I think it poses an interesting dilemma for Romney.  I would not be upset if he did away with it, not because I think it unconstitutional in any sense but because I don't think it is helping faith-based institutions any.  However, if Romney wanted to change it, I'm thinking those creedals lined up at the trough would consider it launching a religious fight.  In the end it will just become another money hole.

Maybe Rudy is for real?

My Lutheran pastor friend Mark Daniels has written a series on "How Christians Might Think About the 2008 Presidential Election":

• Part I: The Bible teaches that we should care about what happens in government. Our active concern becomes a means by which we can share the love of Jesus Christ with others.

I'm thinking creedal Christians and Mormons agree on this.

• Part II : Christians believe in obeying the law of civil authorities, as long as those authorities don't command us to ignore God's will for human beings. Christians, for the most part, believe in upholding the laws of their society, even when they're not completely in agreement with them.

Historically, there was a difference between creedal Christians and Mormons here, but not in the last 100 years – more on that in a minute.

• Part III : Christians may not demand that a pluralistic society see things their ways. But as they live their everyday lives, including the responsible exercise of their vote, they can and should make Biblical justice, loving neighbors in substantive, unsentimental ways, should be a major consideration.

A very pointed message when it comes to considering a Mormon candidacy from a creedal Christian perspective.  Much of what is being said about Mormons would not qualify as loving in a substantive manner.

• Part IV: Very few candidates for political office are the monsters their detractors cast them as being in the heat of political battles. We Christians can't control the rhetoric of others. But we can ask God to help us keep the Eighth Commandment even when it comes to politics.

Would it not be a violation of the Eighth Commandment (do not bear false witness) to hold Mormons to the failings of their past?  For example, they no longer practice polygamy; to challenge them on it now is indeed "false witness."  Combined with Mark's Part III – can it truly be considered just not to educate oneself sufficiently so as to avoid bearing false witness?

I want to empahsize, Mark Daniels is not being politically partisan in his posts, I am imposing some specifics on his great materials.

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

Recently Posted:

• The Animal Takes A Swipe Through The Cage Bars
• Dennis Prager Addresses The Question
• The Animal Is Caged, But Very Dangerous
• What Everybody Is Thinking And No One Is Saying
• We Interrupt The Serious Blog…