Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.
Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Among evangelicals, some of the discomfort is narrowly religious: Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down ”” bigotry can be funny that way ”” but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe.
Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols ”” pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts ”” evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is.
Read the whole article (it is from the NY Times Magazine and is not short).
What’s the deal with the golden tablets?
Mormon theology is odd to say the least. Joseph Smith’s story of an encounter with an angel, and his ‘translation’ of golden tablets is implausible and pocked with untruths and errors. The historicity of the pre-Columbian claims of the Book of Mormon have never received a shred of corrobation. It’s an exceedingly daunting task to be a Mormon theologian. So it’s not difficult to understand why thinking Christians would be troubled by a man like Romney who subscribes wholeheartedly to Mormon theology.
“Although this formulation is unlikely to satisfy those evangelicals who deny that the LDS church is Christian, Romney presumably calculated that speaking about Jesus Christ in terms that sound consistent with ordinary American Protestantism would reassure voters that there was in the end nothing especially unusual about Mormonism.” And therein lies the rub. Mormons do believe that the end justifies the means; ergo, lying is acceptable if it will convert someone in the end. The question to ask Romney is if he believes that the rest of us are truly Christian. Mormonism does not believe that we are. “As we are, God once was. As God is we can become.” That is what they believe.
A long-time friend, my best friend’s daughter actually, often speaks of when she has her “own planet to rule over.” She honestly believes that she’ll ascend to the highest heaven with her husband and the two of them will be gods of their own planet. The Jesus of whom Romney speaks is not the Jesus of Christianity.
Pax,
T
Why would I vote for a person who can be suckered? I get one vote and I plan to use it as wisely as I can. If Romney can be suckered into believing something as illogical as Mormonism, he can be suckered into thinking that Islam has no desire to see sharia law in place all over the world. To be frank, I would vote for an honest atheist over Romney any day.
I’d love to hear a reporter ask Romney if he believes he will get his own planet, and then quietly wait for an answer and not throw him a lifeline.
That whooshing sound would be his presidential aspirations going down the toilet.
Thanks to all the above posts for “calling it like it is.” Mormonism is simply not Christian – – and that is the end of it, for most of us who are Christian. And, there is one additional thing: if any Mormon wishes to come to a worship service in the church I attend, he will be most welcome. If I drive to Salt Lake City, and try to get into the temple on a Sunday morning, my understanding is I will be politely but firmly stopped. If that is true, then indeed we don’t want a Mormon president, if for no other reason but that. That is not bigotry speaking – – that is outright fear.
If your family for generations had been part of a particular religious expression, you’d have a hard time believing anything else, especially if you’ve never understood the actual differences between your doctrines and real Christianity. Mormons, including Romney, do not study traditional Christianity and are told from their infancy that only their church has the right information. He may expect to have his own planet as much as he wishes, so long as he understands that on this planet as President he is sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. I see no reason to doubt that he has such an understanding of his secular duties as President.
I agree with Katherine 100%. I also agree with her that personally (for me) his weird Mormon beliefs aren’t an obstacle to my voting for him for President. But then again, I’d vote for an atheist if I thought he’d do a good job. My interests are his domestic policies; how he’ll be able to handle the war on terror and in international relations in general; and whether he can be trusted to do what he says (an issue not of policy but of character).
That said, the NYM article in question is a poor piece of political analysis. It gives the impression that Romney’s main obstacle in getting elected is his Mormonism. That’s not the case. His much more serious problem is his flip flopping on all kinds of issues. Basically the guy appears to be a person who will say whatever it takes to get elected. He wanted to be elected governor of Massachusettes — he was a big defender of gay rights and gun control and abortion. Now he wants the GOP nomination for President — and surprise he has done a 180! If anyone wants to see a really funny series of strips about this, take a look:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070402
The other problem I had with the article is the problem I have with every article in the mainstream press which attempts to deal with the Christian critique of Mormonism. Each time they say something like this NYTM author said:
“Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical.”
No, sorry buddy: Mormonism is non-Christian and heretical. That doesn’t make it false of course. It’s possible that the claims of traditional Christianity are false and Joseph Smith’s religion is true. But what can’t be sidestepped is that Mormonism involves rejections of very key, very fundamental Christian doctrines, e.g. the Trinity. Or related to that the Mormon belief that Jesus and Satan were brothers. The word heretical can only have meaning if it is used in reference to some standard. And if the standard is not going to be a set of core doctrines, believed in their entirety by people as wildly different as Luther, Pope John Paul, Calvin, Aquinas, Jerome, Saint Francis (etc. — and I could list a bunch of Eastern Orthodox Christians too) — then what could the standard possibly be?
I have not read the article but simply make a general comment. I would not vote for Romney were he to become the Republican candidate, but his religion has absolutely nothing to do with my decision. From a political point of view it makes no difference to me whether the LDS Church is Christian or not. The Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office, and I believe that every American voter should operate on the same principle. I have heard nothing from Romney that would lead me to believe that he could not conscientiously carry out his duties as president independent of the teachings and doctrines of his church.
[blockquote]The Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office, and I believe that every American voter should operate on the same principle.[/blockquote]
Sorry, but that’s just silly. The Constitution prohibits the government from imposing religious tests; citizens are, and should be, free to use whatever criteria they deem best.
What is the difference between LDS’ doctrine and TEC’s doctrine(new thing). To me both what Kath, Gene and Rowan call Christianity isn’t better than what the LDS believe. Both are heresy.
The author of this articles insists that it is illiogical to dismiss Mormon theology and revealtion as “ridiculous”– and that it is no less “ridiculous’ than the Biblical accounts of events long ago.
I strongly suspect that the author of this article, in fact, did not take the time to read the Book of Mormon– it’s a most tedious text, one of the most boring and absurd books that I have ever read. But, quite apart from its literary deficiencies, it depicts a patently ridiculous picture of life in North America not too long ago.
The Book of Mormon claims that there was an IMMENSE CIVILIZATION in North America, as recently as 1500 years ago– a civilization that gave birth to huge spawling CITIES; a civilization that was powered by HORSES; a civilization that produced STEEL; and a civilization in which CHARIOTS were an important part of warfare, and in which other vehicles with WHEELS were in common use.
There is nothing at all illogical about asking questions about all of this. Where are the RUINS of these cities? Where are the BONES of all of these horses? Where is there any archeological evidence of WHEELS in either North America or South America prior to the arrival of Europeans on these shores? Where are the ROADS that these wheeled vehicles would have needed? Where can one find some examples of the STEEL this civilization produced?
These are NOT illogiocal questions at all.
And I am NOT going to cast my vote for any man who tries to gives assent to such outrageous fables and myths.
Paulo, that’s a good point. Your average Mormon is no more a heretic than any reappraiser who has followed reappraiser logic to its predictable and inevitable post-Christian/”non-theistic” end point. In fact, who’s the better Christian, Romney, who believes Jesus Christ is divine, even though what he believes about Christ is theologically incorrect, or Spong or any of a number of other Episcopalians who publicly doubt that Jesus Christ ever even existed as a person, much less as the Son of God?
I find it odd that so many evangelicals are up in arms about Romney’s mormonism, but will shrug off so many candidates transparent athiesm. If what a candidate believes theologically is really important, shouldn’t there be greater concern about a candidate that has knowingly rejected the claims of Christianity as opposed to a candidate who embraces and affirms the faith of his fathers? Better Christopher Hitchens than Ghandi?
Well, probably yes, bad example, but I think you get my point! 🙂
Don R (11) The constitution only prohibits a test for religion on the federal level, not the state level. I just wanted to get that clarified since it is so often ignored (especially by the liberal press). And paulo uk, you’re spot on with your comment!
T
“Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological.”
…as opposed to liberals offering a more sympathetic and less bigoted ear to Mormonism, now thats some funny stuff right there. I wonder sometimes what editors do for a living because its certainly not their job.
#12…. the heresies in question are different (though they share some too). But yes, KJS (and co.) and Joseph Smith are both heretics. But I wouldn’t necessarily put Rowan Williams in that category. He’s definitely done in my view a poor job as ABC (but wow what a terribly tough job he was given) but he’s different from KJS in that he is a vigorous defender of the creeds as they have been traditionally undertstood. He’s actually writen strong attacks on Spong. He’s different from KJS, people who say they are Muslim and Christian, etc.
Heretic is an extremely strong word and should in my view be used sparingly. My guess for example is that Ken Harmon would never call Rowan a heretic — though he’d be happy to admit they have strong disagreements on important matters.
Let’s get this right: The US Constitution, Amendment 1 reads;
[blockquote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/blockquote]
Voters are perfectly free to bring their religious ethics into the voting booth.
I think there is one pretty fundamental question here: do we really want someone with their “finger on the button” who has come to believe that Jesus and Satan are ‘spirit-brothers,’ that Jesus visited America, that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets and a pair of golden spectacles on which God revealed His further word, or that the guy is going to, someday, rule over his own planet with his wife and those who are committed to him? Come on!! Let’s at least give ourselves a chance to make it as a society!! If a person can be horn-swaggled that easily, then who knows what he might buy into?
Article VI of the Constitution says:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
This provision isn’t just federal, but applies to state officials as well. It also pertains only to legal impediments to office, not voters’ political judgments.
# 20 ; Was Thomas Jefferson any better?
#20 Bob
I agree with Bob which I seldom do. I, like most, believe that Mormonism is a sect built on premises that are impossible to justify and which fly in the face of Scripture. However, although I can’t name them, I am quite sure that we have had presidents who have been atheists, agnostics, or simply uninterested in any kind of religion -and yet may have fulfilled the office of president well.
Actually, as to Bob from Boone’s notion:
[blockquote]From a political point of view it makes no difference to me whether the LDS Church is Christian or not.[/blockquote]
I agree, too. If the US were a theocracy, it’d be a different matter. I wholeheartedly reject his rationale, however; the Constitution places limits on government to prevent government from imposing undue restrictions on citizens’ liberty.
If one can be hoodwinked into believing the doctrine of Mormonism, and particularly the non-triune God aspect, then perhaps such a person could be bamboozled into other odd decisions.
I still have to remind folks that the Christian religion (orthodox, evangelical, etc) can ALSO appear to be weird. Imagine: God born in a manger; God and man indwelling the same person; God crucifying God; man rising from the dead; God-man bringing other men and woman to physical life in the sight of others. Worst of all, human beings are sinners and lost! There are those in our electorate who, were they to examine the Christian belief system, would likely find it as completely unbelievable as the Mormon belief system.
Mind you, I believe in Christianity, and proclaim it. But I don’t think we can eliminate a person from the presidency–which is actually “regulated” by SECULAR forces NOT theological ones–because of his religious beliefs. He’s shown us he can “separate” the two well.
Having said that, I will vote for Romney if he is the Republican nominee. I will likely vote for the Republican nominee whoever he is.
Well, I hope [i] I [/i] get one of those planets like on [i] Star Trek, [/i] where it looks pretty much just like Earth, except all the babes have pointed ears. Woo-hoo!
Seriously, Mormonism is hokum, more heretical (if possible) than TECism. But we are not electing a bishop, nor are we crowning a king. We are choosing somebody to manage the country for 4 years. His program, character, & competency are what’s important here, not the loony teachings of Joseph Smith.
I don’t want a Republican Jimmy Carter.
The following can be found here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/pa08.htm
“And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.â€
Now …no religious test in the states?
T
[url=http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html]Religious affiliation of U. S. Presidents: [/url]
[b]Episcopalian:[/b]
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Theodore Roosevelt *
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Gerald Ford
George H. W. Bush
[b]Presbyterian [/b]
Andrew Jackson
James Knox Polk *
Ulysses S Grant *
Rutherford B. Hayes *
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan
[b]Methodist [/b]
James Knox Polk *
Ulysses S Grant *
Rutherford B. Hayes *
William McKinley
George W. Bush
[b]Baptist [/b]
Warren G. Harding
Harry S. Truman
Jimmy Carter
William Jefferson Clinton
[b]Unitarian [/b]
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
[b]Disciples of Christ [/b]
James A. Garfield
Lyndon B. Johnson
Ronald Reagan
(Although raised in his mother’s Disciples of Christ denomination, beginning in 1963 Reagan generally attended Presbyterian church services at Bel-Air Presbyterian Church, Bel-Air, California. He became an official member of Bel-Air Presbyterian after leaving the Presidency. In addition, Reagan stated that he considered himself a “born-again Christian.” )
[b]Dutch Reformed [/b]
Martin Van Buren
Theodore Roosevelt *
[b]Quaker [/b]
Herbert Hoover
Richard M. Nixon
[b]Congregationalist[/b]
John Adams *
Calvin Coolidge
[b]Catholic [/b]
John F. Kennedy
[b]Jehovah’s Witnesses/River Brethren [/b]
Dwight D. Eisenhower *
(Eisenhower’s family originally belonged to the local River Brethren sect of the Mennonites. However, when Ike was five years old, his parents became followers of the WatchTower Society, whose members later took the name Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Eisenhower home served as the local WatchTower meeting Hall from 1896 to 1915, when Eisenhower’s father stopped regularly associating due to the WatchTower’s failed prophesies that Armageddon would occur in October 1914 and 1915. Ike’s father received a WatchTower funeral when he died in the 1940s. Ike’s mother continued as an active Jehovah’s Witness until her death. Ike and his brothers also stopped associating regularly after 1915. Ike enjoyed a close relationship with his mother throughout their lifetimes, and he even used a WatchTower printed Bible for his second Presidential Inauguration. In later years, Eisenhower was baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church in a single ceremony on February 1, 1953, just weeks after his first inauguration as president. In his retirement years, he was a member of the Gettysburg Presbyterian Church in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.)
For names listed in more than one denomination/religion, this refers to their being brought up in one and converting to another later in life.
For more detailed information, click on the link above.
I hope this helps.
Jim Elliott <><
To claim that Jefferson was “Episcopalian” (as classically defined) is stretching it, to say the least.
I view the LDS as a Christian heresy in the same sense that Islam is — that is, they are both vaguely based on a Christian background which is not understood and seriously misinterpreted, and both have other revelations which they view as superseding the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. (LDS: Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price; Islam: Quran and hadiths.
Mormon authorities, cognizant of the lack of any evidence to support the Book of Mormon stories in North America, have now placed the events in the Yucatan peninsula. If you’ve believed it all your life, and your ancestors took an arduous and dangerous pilgrimage which is like an Exodus to the community, you’re not going to give up on it easily, especially when you have no accurate understanding of what the traditional Christian teaching actually is.
I’m going to continue to pray for Romney’s conversion, and if called upon in the general election, I’ll vote for him (while still praying!).
The story about Eisenhower’s being elected to the Presidency while having such strong Watchtower connections is definitive. They’re not Christian either. He was able to manage a war despite this oddity.
#26 I don’t think that TEC heresy is better then LDS, both are heresy, and heresy is heresy. Saying that I would have not problem in voting to a mormon, they a good and honest people, I would prefer a British PM mormon than a liberal in favor of abortion and gay marriages.
Something of a two edged sword, isn’t it?
I don’t know if he coined the term, but Berkley Breathed said it first and best in the term ‘conspicuous piety’. Ladies and Gentlepersons: I give you …….. Opus ! http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/
And yes, Joe Smith practiced some 19th century form of augury in which he placed his face tightly in his hat for extended periods of time. He then would dictate to his waiting secretary, Oliver Platt, the lights, flashes, and squiggles and the occasional letter that were a natural consequence of the oxygen deprivation.
(This is related in Dr. Walter Martin’s tome The Kingdom of the Cults)
Dr.Joan,
There is a substantial difference between accepting on faith things which cannot be proved or disproved– such as the Virgin Birth– and acceptintg on faith things which can easily be disproved.
The Mormon “history” of North America– covering a period from roughly 500 AD to 1400AD– can be EASILY disproved.
Apart from the Aztec and Mayan cities of Mexico and the Inca cities of South America, there are NO archeological remains of any huge cities in the western hemisphere. Such cities as were found in Central America and South America– for a number of reasons clearly indicated in the Book of Mormon– are NOT the cities referred to in the Book of Mormon. So, where are the archeological remains of the Mormon-imagined cities?
There were no HORSES in the western hemisphere, prior to the importation of horses by Europeans. There are no skeletal remains of horses to be found ANYWHERE in the western hemisphere, prior to arrival of Europeans.
There are no pre-Columbian artistic depictions of anybody riding horses; neither are there any artistic depictions of horses.
There are no archeological remains of any wheeled vehicles that predate the arrival of the Europeans. There are no artistic depictions of wheeled vehicles to be found in pre-Columbian art. There are no archeological remains of ROADS, without which wheeled vehicles make no sense. There are TRAILS that people walked along, but no roads.
There is no archeological evidence to support the idea that STEEL was produced in North America 1500 years ago. Any such steel produced would still be here. It isn’t. As far as that goes, there is no IRON found in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Native peoples in the western hemisphere worked gold, silver, and copper– almost exclusively for ornamental use. There was NO steel.
There is a substantial difference between accepting on faith things which cannot be proved or disproved– such as the Virgin Birth– and acceptintg on faith things which can easily be disproved.
bluenarrative,
I’m wondering, with your cheerful willingness to apply modern logic and science to Mormonism, to what extent you’re willing to do the same to Christianity: e.g, is the world more than 6,000 years old? Are we descended from apes? was Ahimelech or Abiathar the high priest when David got the consecrated bread? is Mark 16:9-20 the Word of God, or not? Was Goliath 9 feet 6 inches tall – or 6 feet, 6 inches tall?
In general, I find the Christian answers to these questions just as lame as Mormon apologetics on the Lamanites or Book of Abraham. And I would say that anybody who thinks the world is 6,000 years old or deny the theory of evolution just because of scripture is just as gullible as you accuse the true believing Mormon to be.
Sidney,
As you know perfectly well, there is NO TEXT in the Bible that states or even suggests that the world is 6000 years old. Bishop Ussher, almost 1500 years after the Christian Bible was shaped into its present canon, came up with that rather nutty notion entirely on his own, without reference to Biblical texts.
The Bible says NOTHING about the process by which God created mankind, other than asserting that this was an intentional act on the part of God. The overwhelming majority of the Christians in the world today have no theological trouble at all accepting that the process by which God created the world– and humankind– was probably rather complex.
The genuinely important ideas that Christians must adhere to are 1.) creation was neither spontaneous, nor random 2.) humanity is, in some rather unimaginable way, created in the “image of God.”
Whether the high priest was Ahimelech or Abiathar is a question that has no bearing on any doctrinal matters at all– unless you are trying to punch holes in a very narrow understanding of what Biblical “inerrancy” might mean. I suspect that you have seen this apparent textual contradiction put forth as an argument against the reliability of Scripture. Are you at all aware of some of the scholarship that has resolved this apparent contradiction quite satisfactorily?
Mark 16:9-20 has been accepted into the canon of Scripture. As such, I embrace it as an integral part of the Word of God. I am a textual critic; I read Greek quite fluently; and I am well aware of how various “higher critics” (for a variety of reasons, most of them having to do with various theories of textual criticism) like to propose theories in which the Bible, somehow “contains” the Word of God, but is not, in its entirety, synonymous with the Word of God. Such arguments have yet to impress me very much. And applying such arguments to Mark– a remarkably coherent and transparent book– is an approach that can be easily dismissed by anybody familiar with the Greek text.
I read Hebrew, as well as Greek– though, I confess, my Greek is a lot better than my hebrew. As regards the story of Goliath, his height is translated in the King James Bible as “six cubits and a span.” I am reluctant to get into a technical discussion of Hebrew weights and measures, and how they correlate to modern weights and measures; nor am I going to get into a discussion of how British weights and measures differ from American standards. But, for whatever it is worth, 6 feet, 6 inches is a lot closer to the measures offered in the text than 9 feet, six inches. Again, however, let me point out that there is no doctrine or theological principle that hinges upon Goliath’s actual height.
Have you ever read Mormon apologetics? Have you ever read the Book of Abraham? The most convoluted and strained readings of Mormon texts– the most baroque apologetics imaginable– still leave one confronted with a “history” of North America that is patently false and which was obviously concocted by somebody who was both uneducated and not even particularly imaginative.
There are astonishing claims to found in the Bible, to be sure. And, in more than a few places, the text is difficult or ambiguous. But none of Bible’s astonsihing claims can be disproven as readily as the Mormon claims.
It is a recognized FACT that there has NEVER been even ONE archeological FACT that has disproved ANY historical claim made in the Bible. As a matter of fact, there is a relentless and impressive record of archeological discoveries that continue to bolster the reliability of the Bible as a guide to history.
I am not gullible. I accept the Virgin Birth on faith. It cannot be disproved. There is a difference between being gullible and exercising faith. I have faith that Jesus rose from the dead. Nobody can disprove that he did so. The best that anybody can say is that this has never happened in any other instance that is known. But to say that an even is singular is NOT to disprove it.
The Mormons have NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT to offer against the complete lack of archeological evidence to back up their claims.
But I can pretty easily disprove the existence of a Mormon-imagined world in North America in the not-too-distant past.
correction: “…to say that an event is singular is NOT to disprove it…”
Many, many, many archeological facts disprove Mormon claims. More importantly, they disprove Mormon claims upon which important Mormon theological principles are constructed.
There has NEVER been a coherent Mormon response to the COMPLETE ABSENCE of archeological evidence backing up their “history” of events in recent pre-Columbian history.
Nor can they calim that this “history” is incidental to their doctrines or irrelevant to their over-arching theology, such as it is. Their theology and their doctrines are inexorably linked to an acceptance of this history. This history of North America is NOT to be understood as some sort of metaphor; it is NOT to be viewed as some sort of arcane and/or poorly translated ancient text describing incidental events in hyperbolic language. It is taken by Mormons as a concrete, factual, literal history– presented through divine revelation to moden men by the agency of Joseph Smith… And if you buy into this history, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing…
bluenarrative,
But none of Bible’s astonishing claims can be disproven as readily as the Mormon claims.
I thoroughly agree with you on that – the case against Mormonism is overwhelming – remarkably so, really. And yes, I’ve read some of Hugh Nibley’s apologetics. The Book of Abraham is a closed case fraud. The problems there are many levels higher than any with orthodox Christianity. But you and I have examined the evidence and decided that the best explanation of the evidence is obviously that Mormonism is a fraud.
But millions of Mormons don’t see it that way – including ones who are probably more intelligent than you or I are. We would be wise to be taken aback by this and wonder – how could this be so when the fraud is so plain to us? In all likelihood, their faith, hopes and dreams have sunk them into deep denial. We should think twice before assuming that we are too bright and logical to suffer similar delusions. If the accumulation of the evidence on Christian claims ever did disprove anything – or if the Bible ever really does contradict itself on an important matter – would we be able to see it? I wonder.
(Before I forget, my point about Goliath is that the Dead Sea Scrolls say that he was 4 cubits and a span in height. So, it’s just another question about textual variants.)
Sidney, You’re quite right about the Book of Abraham– it is a fragment of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Regarding the height of Goliath, I would ask several questions of you. First, let me say that I am not a Hebrew scholar, though I have studied Hebrew and I am reasonably familiar with it. With this in mind, I am curious which particular scroll you are referring to. The term “Dead Sea Scrolls” covers a lot of territory, and is frequently used by non-academic types to refer to almost any ancient scroll unearthed in the 40’s and 50’s. I’d have to see the photostat of the scroll in question, before I commented on it. But, offhand, I would have to say that I would be VERY surprised to find any Hebrew text ascribing such a small stature to Goliath. A height of 6′ 6″ would have made him appear a giant– in fact, George Washington, at about the same height, was considered to be a freakishly gigantic man in the 18th century– and I can imagine no reason that any Hebrew author might make Goliath out to be a dwarf. It seems like an unlikely scribal error (the ancient equivalent of a “typo”) accordintg to everything that we know about the transmission of ancient texts. If you’ve ever seen some of these scrolls, I am sure you can imagine what a chore it is to actually read them. And so, on that basis, I am going to assume that this discrepancy in height would be an error on the part of a modern reader– and not a textual error. To be sure, there are some, very minor, textual variants at work in the Hebrew Scriptures. But what is genuinely astonishing is the degree to which these are such rare and insignificant events.
Yes, it is sad that so many people buy into the preposterous claims of Mormonism. I suspect that something more than simple denial is at work there.
I do not know about you, but I am constantly on the look-out for Biblical discrepancies and any tendency on my part to put a delusional spin on my faith. I struggle with all sorts of issues, as far as my Christian faith goes. But, so far, I believe that I am willing to look at things fairly objectively. I certainly do not shy away from any difficulties presented either by the Bible or by hostile critics of the Bible.
#39:
A quick check of the ESV translation of 1 Samuel 17:4 says, “there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span,” with a footnote on the word “six” saying, “Hebrew; Septuagint, Dead Sea Scroll and Josephus four.”
If “cubit” has the conventional meaning (nominally 18 inches) then “six cubits and a span” is over nine feet tall, while “four cubits and a span” is something over six feet. As you note, being over six feet tall would have been pretty remarkable in the ancient world — probably qualifying one as a “giant” — while still remaining within the realm of human variation; nine feet would be much more outlandish.