The post below on the Church and FMA has taken an interesting turn, and I think it’s worth constructing a new thread on this issue. The question at hand is: who is more of a threat to the Church, leftist secularists or right-wing Christian fundamentalists? In this post I will argue that right-wingers are more of a threat in the short-term but that ultimately secularists are the far bigger threat.
First, let’s define some terms. By leftist secularists, I mean humanists, Deists, agnostics, atheists, skeptics and Europeans. Oops, sorry, that last one was a bit of a joke. Anyway, the point is that there is a sub-group of people who actively oppose religion because they see it all as not being “reasonable” or “scientific.” These are the kind of people who will argue that Christian fundamentalists are very close to Islamists, for example, and that “all religion is the same.” (Note: before my conversion which started about eight years ago, I was an active member of this group, so I know a bit about how leftist secularists think).
By right-wing fundamentalists, I mean the types of people you see protesting in Temple Square during conference or at every temple dedication. I mean the evangelicals you may see on late-night TV screaming about gays, abortion and, yes, the Mormons. I mean the type of people who may refuse to let their kids play with your kids because your kids are Mormon and they are afraid they may have cooties. These are also the kind of people who say Mormons are not Christians and that we worship Joseph Smith…polygamy…no trinity…zzzzzzzzzzz.
OK, how do we judge which is worse for us poor Mormons caught in the middle? Does the Book of Mormon tell us how to judge? Well, in fact it does right there in Moroni chapter 7:
15For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
It seems there are two main criteria: 1)who persuades and invites you to do good? and 2)Who persuades you to believe in Christ? “Doing good” is, in today’s world, subjective, but I happen to believe it is easy to define: do the things that we saw Jesus do. If you do that, you are “doing good.” I know that leaves a whole range of activities as undefined (is it “doing good” to allow women a choice about their bodies when they are pregnant if it involves the death of a potential human being?), but it is at least a start.
Okay, so which of the two groups above does good? Well, secular leftists do some good. It’s hard to argue against helping the poor, being in favor of health care for all, being in favor of civil rights, etc. It appears that they clearly are trying to do what Jesus does in some initiatives.
It is also worth pointing out that many right-wing fundamentalists do a lot of work that is clearly good by any standard: tithing money often goes to help the poor worldwide, to fight AIDS in Africa and to help with education and health care.
So, anybody that claims that neither of these groups do any good is clearly wrong.
OK, now which one persuades people to believe in Christ? Ah, there’s the rub. Clearly, many right-wing preachers today are violating one of Isaiah’s main complaints about people in the latter days, that they would draw near with their mouths but that their hearts would be far from God. But almost all of these preachers (except for the ones who spend their time stalking Temple Square and publishing anti-Mormon trash) are encouraging their flocks to read the Bible and to believe in Christ. Their way of encouraging people to believe in Christ may seem foreign to us (Amen! Hallelujah!!) but it clearly works for many millions of people worldwide.
I truly believe that some evangelical leaders are evil. But a large number of them, in my opinion the majority, are doing good works. They are preparing many people to receive the fulness of Christ and are helping people with their spiritual advancement. From an eternal perspective, it seems to me a smaller step toward climbing Jacob’s ladder toward exaltation when you have already accepted in your heart that the Bible is sacred and that Jesus really is your savior.
In contrast, leftist secularists do very little to help people with their advancement through immortality. They do not believe in God and so therefore do not believe in moral absolutes, or the after-life or in eternal perspectives. Yes, they believe in “doing good” while on Earth in some ways, but their morality is often based on shifting sands because they do not have the iron rod of the Bible to help them know in modern times what is good and from God and what is evil.
So, right-wing fundamentalists will rail against Mormons in the short-term and protest at General Conference in the coming years. They will publish hundreds of anti-Mormon tracts and web sites. But the majority of right-wing fundamentalists are relatively peaceful and unlikely to declare war on us. Meanwhile, you can bet that the next model for the anti-Christ will be a secularist and not somebody who is persuading anybody to believe in Christ. Secularist leaders (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) have caused the death of more Latter-day Saints than were ever killed in Missouri or Illinois, and in the long run I am more worried about such a threat than about some crazy guy waving soiled garments in Temple Square.
Let me end this post for calling for a pacific discussion of this issue. At the end of the day, we are all trying to work out our salvation in our own ways. Let’s try to discuss this with appropriate civility. Thanks.
In a way, either can be said to be doing good in that they are counterbalancing the other. You know, opposition in all things. Both are a result of the natural man. One places all faith in reason, an mankind, the other develop an us or them balck and white, holier than thou mentality. Both have pride at their root and ultimately this is a truly serious threat. I have to say Right wing extremism is more dangerous to the Church’s members because it can infiltrate the church itself insidiously, while the hierarchy is always on the guard against secularism. It is too easy to hear the word Christ and associate it as something always good when it may be used as a way to advocate hate, intolerance, you know, things diametrically opposed to what Christ actually lived and taught. Any secularist will anxiously point to “religion” as the root of all wars, and when taken superficialy and nationalistically in tone, they are right. I think whited sepulchre, pharisaical, I’m okay because God is on my side religion and right wing extremism is a very, very dangerous threat. Ultimately, while the secularists rail on faith, the bottom line is that our very nature is to always seek for something higher than ourselves. Therefore, In the long term I don’t think secularism can ever banish faith entirely. Since Right wing extremism appeals to this natural draw and twists and perverts it, I have to take the other side and say it is the bigger threat.
I don’t hang out with many secularists, but it seems like many of them are perfectly willing to allow religionists to do their thing as long as they aren’t doing it through the government. (Was Hitler really secularist? I think I’ve seen that challenged.)
Anyway, it seems to me that what we need is more effort to negotiate, compromise, and get along with one another, rather than stirring up fear and animosity. In other words, be peacemakers. (None of that should be interpreted as criticism of this post.) The more people view public policy as something to be captured as an ideological goal, we are screwed.
Here’s an interesting article on Robespierre and the Reign of Terror addressing your more general last point. Key quote:
“It sometimes seems as if history had deliberately placed Hitler and Stalin side by side at the climax of the horror of modern history simply to demonstrate that the road to Hell is paved with any intention you like; a planned, pseudo-rationalist utopianism and an organic, racial, backward-looking Romanticism ended up with the same camps and the same carnage.”
“Doing good…is easy to define: do the things that we saw Jesus do.”
Well, of course, defined that way the secularists will always ultimately get the short end of the stick.
Here is the threat as I see it. Its from the Left long term.
Example: SSM
SSM and discrimination against gays is THE battle of the future.
The battle is over the Churches Tax Exempt status esp over Real Estate taxes.
The initial warning shots were fired recently in MASS over catholic charities and adoptions. In a generation or two this will spread and get worse.
The fundies are just in religious competition for souls and not that much to worry about long term.
Fortunately, you can have the best of both worlds. You can be leftist and not secular, while being Christian without being right-wing fundamental. I am a card carrying member of the Christian Left myself.
Pris, #4, if you can do a better job of defining “doing good” on an LDS web site than describing it as what Jesus did (and does), then go for it! I’m willing to accept other definitions, but please look at the context of the quotation from 7 Moroni and note its specific references to the Light of Christ.
Jared, #2, it is a well-worn canard that Hitler was in a member of any religion. Serious historians note that he persecuted religions and wanted no God but himself. See here for his thoughts on Christianity.
Threat in what sense? It seems to me that the secularists, for the most part, allow people to be left alone. Yeah they may dominate talk in the public sphere, but they do allow people to do what they want. The right wing folks, on the other hand, want to limit what can be said. And that, to me, is a far, far bigger threat.
The whole marriage business is the only real secularist “threat.” But that exists primarily because the state is in the marriage business at all. If it got out then the question would be moot. Because marriage is in the public sphere there is one definition of marriage rather than a plurality so redefining marriage secularly ends up affecting religious senses. While I see this as a threat, I doubt it is quite the threat some see it as. (I see other problems as more serious that affect marriage rather than whether gays marry, although I still favor a ban on gay marriage)
I should add that you are wrong if you think secularists don’t believe in moral absolutes. Clearly the main ethical views, such as utilitarianism and consequentialism are morally absolute.
Just to add, your point about who leads people to Christ more. I suspect one has to add to that, who makes it easier to teach people about Christ. It isn’t the secularists generating most of the anti-Mormonism… I think even in that regard the far right (as opposed to more moderate Christians) lead people away from Christ. It’s sort of like the apostasy. Who were the bigger threat? The Pagans or the Christians who were distorting the gospel?
So right-wing secularists are the very devil!
Clark,
I think that Pagans were the bigger threat. If you read Jacob 5, it sounds like apostate Christianity produced bad fruit but that it kept the roots alive.
Adam, could you expand upon your reading of Jacob 5? While historically we can discuss the anti-Christian purges of certain emperors it seems to me that in terms of jacob 5 the “pagans” aren’t really mentioned except as wild branches grafted on. Beyond those (who wouldn’t really count as pagans anymore) the pagans aren’t mentioned in the chapter. All the damage is internal for the most part.
I for one have never heard a LDS parent talk about how they are concerned that the local Baptists are going to either entice towards sin or try and convert our Youth. (this may happen with the fundies its just not as big a concern as what follows) I have heard lots and lots of talk about secular culture being damaging to our kids though.
I like this question, but I think I resolve it differently than the original post does. What persuades a person to believe in Christ? What is believing in Christ?
Is belief in Christ a mental construct of an historical person? (“I believe that a person named Jesus was born to a person named Mary approximately 2000 years ago in the town of Bethlehem in the Roman Empire.”) If so, it doesn’t seem any more significant than believing in Marc Antony.
So believing in Christ must mean something else. Is it believing that someone else suffered because of your actions? Probably not, since, all of us being sinners of one ilk or another, every person has multiple people who have suffered because of their sins.
So believing in Christ must mean something else. (I’ll not belabor this — you see my basic point.)
Here’s what I think it means for something to “persuadeth to believe in Christ”: it means to convince a person that that she need not be held back by wrongs that she has committed in the past. Instead, she can move forward from this very hour into the future to improve the world and the lives of her sisters and brothers free from the effects of her prior failings and misdeeds.
That is what the gospel of Jesus Christ offers.
Curiously, I know of right-wing fundamentalists (and not all of the Christian, for that matter) who believe and teach that principle, and I know of left-wing secularists who believe and teach that principle. I don’t think that Jesus Christ really cares whether His name (which, after all, was not “Jesus Christ” but rather some rendering of “Yeshua,” in pidgin Aramaic/Hebrew) is attached to the process or not.
I am with Curtis.
There are folks on the left who are genuinely religious. Many civil rights advocates in the 1960s were considered “left wingers”, yet were very religious and very Christian. In fact, in the 1900s, the abolition movement was considered radical (certainly in the South), and was religiously based.
Many Roman Catholic priests who oppose abortion and capital punishment and the invasion of Iraq and the maldistribution of wealth,would be considered by many to be “leftists”. Sojourners is a good example of an Evangelical magazine that interprets scriptures like Isaiah in a manner some would consider “leftist.” In fact, I think some of the teachings of the early Brethren and the D&C, condemning the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich, could be considered downright “leftist.”
I once asked my father which was worse, the far right or the far left. I still agree with his answer: “both of them.”
Personally, I consider myself a radical moderate, who is more comfortable at this time in the democratic party than the republican party.
Geoff,
I’m not sure your assertion that evangelical leaders are “are preparing many people to receive the fulness of Christ” withstands scrutiny. I suspect they are innoculatiang many people from ever considering Mormonism. Would be interesting to know how many LDS converts come out of Evangelicalism. Who knows? Many people in the secular world, on the other hand, find an increasing feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness to their lives as the years pass. They become open to spiritual things, and thus the Church. Isn’t that what happened to you?
Perhaps your personal experiences in NoCal color your judgement on this one. My perspective is just as tainted, in the opposite direction. Years of living among conservative midwestern evangelicals (before my escape! left me quite wary of them. One of the reasons I still identify somewhat with the Church is because by and large it just feels very different from evanglicalism (recent blog strings notwithstanding….).
bbell-
Would you let your kids attend activities with their friends at the local Baptist church? Hope about some type of secular organization such as 4-H? Which might prove more threatening to the faith you want them to maintain?
It would also be fascinating to know what percentage of ex- and inactives went to secularism, vs evangelicalism or other religions. Anybody have any data? My sense is that the most aggressive anti-mormons are mostly Christians of one stripe or another. You won’t see Michael Moore re-making The Godmakers anytime soon.
I apologize for the types, that should be “In fact, in the 1800s, abolitionists”
I would not be offended if the proprietors simply corrected the error and deleted this erratum.
Not all secularists are happy to let religion alone. Some very hateful, intolerant, angry atheists belong to that camp. I have to say my experience in college was that anyone espousing any kind of right wing view had a hateful fury of words poured out upon them. I don’t think it is so simple as to secularists live and let live. They preach this, but fundies preach Christ and sometimes don’t take his teachings to heart. While I stated above right wing fundamentalism is more dangerous, I don’t think secularism can just be written off.
Clark, the suggestion that right wing evangelical types are the ones who want to limit free speech rings rather false in my ears. I have never heard them even make the suggestion – the modern hostility to free speech is headquarted at the universities – with speech codes to avoid saying anything “hurtful” no matter how true, as well as in Canada and the E.U. – neo-leftist motivations all, a trend that could make certain religious doctrines illegal.
The only serious right wing threat to free speech at the moment is with regard to the publication of various forms of information some see as crucial to national security, e.g. whether the government can prosecute journalists for publishing government leaks the same way they prosecute them (and others) for publishing trade secrets.
My main problem is intrusiveness. Secularists can be obnoxious about public displays of religion or anything resembling state sanction of religion, but I have yet to hear of a secularist movement in a developed democratic nation that has tried to ban a religion aside from Scientology. (Which really didn’t turn into a slippery slope in Germany, surprisingly.)
On the other hand, extreme right-wing Christians want to regulate everything I do in my private life aside from religion: my love life, my choices for family planning, the media I read/watch/consume, etc. Moreover, non-religious “secular” logic at least can be argued with. “Because God said so” has been cited by our President as one reason we have troops overseas, and a reason for failed abstinence-only education in developing nations and I simply cannot accept that as a valid reason for public policy.
This is not to say that God may not disapprove or approve of various governmental policies. I’m just saying that logic is much more universal than claims to divine inspiration, and more amenable to compromise.
So, same thing with Mormonism. If we’re taken over by “secularists,” some of the rhetoric may change but I have a hunch nobody will complain about my private practice of religion. If the Church is “taken over” by extreme Christian-right types, I expect temple recommend questions to start asking about my politics and details of my sex life again. No thanks.
I think that both in the short term and in the long term that the secularists are the biggest threat to the Church because fundamentalism is merely a reaction to secularism, that is, secularism causes fundamentalism. Granted, fundamentalism is an OVER reaction to secularism, but it still would not exist if it were not for the underlying secularism that threatens all people of faith, not just Latter-day Saints. Who carried out the great genocides of the 20th century? It was Stalin, Hitler and Mao. None of these were fundamentalists of any religious stripe. Stalin was an atheist. Hitler was a paganist and occultist. And Mao was an atheist. Not only that, their followers who carried out their hideous orders were also of these religious persuasions. If mankind could persuade the secularists to repent of their unbelief, the fundamentalism that we so abhor would fade away.
Right wing fundamentalism created the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, and the dark ages. One could also argue that secularism was created in response to these events in history. I think one balances out the other, opposition in all things, and pride is at the root of both. I think comment #2 was profound, in that the real problem is taking public policy and using it to capture and enforce an idealogical goal. When this is done by either side, it is tyranny.
I don’t know which side is the greater danger, but we have yet another proof positive that the secular agenda CAN be imminently dangerous in public policy: witness the fact that Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the most respected adoption agencies, is now no longer allowed to send adopted children to families they deem suitable.
What does this compare to: the Dred Scott case of 1852?
Ann Coulter is a demagogue, practically an entertainer – pushing buttons for dramatic effect. No one takes that kind of rhetoric seriously, not even the right wing lunatic fringe – the fringe that thinks the fluoridation was a Communist plot, and the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy of Jewish bankers. Even those folks are knee jerk defenders of the First Amendment, at least so far as *speech* is concerned. To be other wise would be un-American.
So yes, many on the right (including me) want to see better control of pornography and obscenity, and think the Supreme Court overturning congressional regulation of such on the Internet (the Communications Decency Act) was a perversion of the Constitution. As also the 10th Circuit Court decision stating that Utah could not regulate alcohol advertisements, billboards in particular.
Even political speech is often regulated by time, place, and manner. The idea that the First Amendment provides a blank check for expression of all types without regard to influence on children, public display, etc. is a social disaster.
Geoff:
I’m afraid that your days of being a left-wing secularist may have tainted your perception of right-wing fundamentalists. The screaming-in-the-streets types are so rare as to be next to non-existant.
As a former evangelical/fundamentalist (but still a right-winger) I take exception to you (and others) painting the majority of evangies/fundies as the screaming irrational type. That is a caricature fostered by the left wing.
The screaming-in-your-face types get the press because they are at temple square during conference. But I’m appalled, literally, at the number of ‘naclers who seem ascribe that attitude and behavior to the millions of decent church-going evangelicals and fundamentalists in this country.
Perceiving them as a threat to Mormonism is itself a product of left-wing liberalism.
The perception of fundamentalism as a threat is something fostered by the anti-christian agenda of the left and the left-dominated media.
We have much more to fear from left-wingers and socialists in the church than we do from evangelical and fundamentalist christians.
I’m appalled and ashamed that so many “liberal” Mormons consider them a threat.
So there are three points I’m dismayed/appalled/upset about:
1) ascribing the irrationality/screaming done by an extremely small minority to the entire evangelical/fundamentalist community.
2) claiming that the evangelical/fundamentalist community is a threat to the LDS church or faith.
3) people not seeing through the prejudicial agenda of the left-wing media.
I’m not saying we need to form big circles, hold hands, and sing “Kumbaya” with our evangelical/fundamentalist neighbors. But I am encouraging all ya’ll to stop beleiving the BS you hear and read about evangelical/fundamentalist people in the media. The media LIE about them as much, if not more than they LIE about us.
Who publishes all the anti-mormon literature, Bookslinger? Knopf?
Bookslinger,
I took Geoff in starting this thread honestly wished to avoid overgeneralization of any group. How else do we realize “at eh end of the day we are all trying to work out salvation in our own ways?” I certainly feel that right wing fundamentalism is by no means a monolithic movement. Many, many of the “religious right” are very sincere in their devotion to Christ. This devotion can be misdirected in some subtle ways.
From what I have seen, I believe there is a split or at least vigorous debate within the movement about how to best convert the world to Christ. Is it through example or through the political process? There exists a very real contingent,(hopefully small?), whose entire goal is to raise a generation of devotees removed from the world (through home schooling replete now a Fundamentalist University for the right wing home educated) with the dream that they will penetrate the US government and restore the US to the “Christian” nation originally intended by their vision of the founding fathers. It is this kind of fundamentalism that frightens me every bit as much as the idea of a Stalin or Hitler in the US with aspirations.
From there, it is not hard to envision such a government then deciding which kind of Christianity fits the acceptable framework quickly leading to persecution of the church for its heresies and becoming a vehicle for widespread hatred for those who do not share a narrow set of defined values.
This type of fundamentalism is isolative. It fears the rest of mankind and is therefore unable to develop true love and empathy for their fellowmen. Of course, the media does not help anything by acting in a fearful, reactionary way, sensationalizing this movement, generalizing it with labels, comparing it with muslim terrorism, etc. The media is right about one point, religious extremism is a real phenomenon. It is something to legitimately fear. One omnipresent danger in any we as LDS share with them is the subtle way we can decide the world is hostile and wicked, that we need to withdraw and that we are better because we have the truth. We are the Lord’s people. No one is in more danger in becoming as the pharisees than those in possession of the complete truth. The key to countering this, I believe, is to really get to “know Christ” to recieve his image in our countenance and see the great potential in all men. Can we envision the influence of the spirit in the lives of all individuals, regardless of thir flaws, or what side of the political spectrum they may belong to. Can we learn to see in any societal movement whatever true principals as witnessed by the spirit, may be behind it. In short, can we really learn to understand and love our fellowmen. Secularism, through intellectual aggrandizement, credentialism and denial/ridiculing of Faith and resultant fear of those who exercise it, and Right wing Fundamentalism through self righteousness and xenophobia are both dangerous for exactly because they lead to enmity, contention, fear and conflict.
I too have many good friends in the fundamentalist right as well as the secular left (including both a member of the John Birch Society’s national board and another who is a member of the ACLU national board). It is kind of fun to get emails and mailings from both sides. I count myself lucky to know them and have them as friends. While I disagree with the extreme political positions of such friends, I have found them by and large to be kind and decent people. To paraphrase Sting: “The [left and right extremists] love their children too.”
Which group is a larger threat to the Saints. After being member for thirty years, which is more likely to change me? The Left that is telling me to abort all babies, burn flags, support SSM? Or the Right that will slowly change my mind. The Right has the ability to twist the true gospel ever so slightly until I stop believing in the saving ordinances. The secularists doesn’t have a chance in converting the run-of-the-mill LDS.
The Democrats are the party of lust.
The Republicans are the party of greed.
Both are “deadly sins.” Both are incredibly self-centered.
This is like asking whether the Pharisees or the Saducees were a greater threat to Christ’s followers. Honestly, what’s the difference?
Mark (#18), it is generally thought that the FCC crackdown the past couple of years is due to right wing, especially religious, thought. I should add that a lot of the crackdown I support. But clearly it is often seen as a kind of free speech limitation. Further it isn’t that hard to find right wing groups who’d like a return to the censorship of film and TV that one found in the 50’s.
I agree with you that academia has its own problems and that the left has its own pet hobby horses of not supporting free expression. However generally these are (IMO) overstated and typically limited to academia. That’s not to deny that one ought not be concerned. Just that the range of effect seems different.
All of this gets into what counts as public speech however and what it means for it to be free. For instance if I complain about some TV broadcast am I really trying to limit free speech or am I simply acting within my rights as a consumer?
The other interesting limit of free speech though is anti-nudity laws. For instance should playwrites and directors be banned from nudity in plays according to the same laws intended to limit or ban strip clubs?
I am not suggesting we turn into Calvin’s Geneva, but the type of first amendment fundamentalism that converts anything into free speech is not what the founders had in mind.
Why shouldn’t the voice of the people be able to keep obscenity from the eyes of the unwilling, and larger than life alcohol advertisements off the public streets. We are turning classical liberalism gradually into government protected (and often subsidized) moral anarchy.
It is like watching the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in slow motion.
By the way, the censorship system of the thirties-fifties, aka the Hays Code, was not government mandated, and so technically has nothing to do with the First Amendment, it was self imposed, as much a marketing decision as an aspect of common culture.
Now it is ridiculous to suppose that we do not have similar cultural self-regulation today. It is just more informal, and in favor of roughly the opposite set of “values”. The tyranny of political correctness, anti-elitism, and hostility to traditional morality, God, family, business, country makes most movies vary between comic farce and utter unwatchability. The Golden Age of American cinema has long since passed in all aspects except the technical.
#15, My friend Mikeinweho
Keeping strictly to retention of Youth ignoring all the other issues.. I have 10 years YM experience just for background.
I have yet to see here in the bible belt one of my YM get mixed up with the local fundies and go inactive or become a Baptist. I imagine it does happen somewhere sometime but I have never seen it. And my YM have lots of fundie friends some of whom are quite aggressively anti-mormon. My YM laugh at their Anti-LDS comments and often ask me for bashing materiel. But usually these fundie kids have high standards and seem to respect LDS standards on chastity and W oF W
I have seen repeatedly YM get mixed up with secular friends and go inactive over Sex and W of W issues. Usually the secular friends will tell them that the church standards are old fashioned etc. This scenario is more common in my experience
I think this question is fundamentally flawed in that, while everyone is eschewing overgeneralization, the question is framed to call for an overly broad generalized single conclusion. I think a more fruitful question would be “in what ways, if any, do leftist secularism and rightist fundamentalism challenge the work of the Restored Gospel and in what circumstances do one or the other present greater obstacles?” Made more precise in this way, I would like to bring up a specific issue which hasn’t yet been broached. Missionary work in developed nations is confronting an new obstacle from investigators who research “Joseph Smith,” “Mormons,” etc. on the Internet and encounter a preponderance of vociferous and inaccurate websites about the Church. While missionairies historically have always had to deal with their investigators sometimes being exposed to anti-Mormon material, the internet has escalated this obstacle exponentially. And the overwhelming majority of those awful anti-Mormon sites are put up by the fundamentalists.
This is not to downplay the pernicious influence of the anti-religious or areligious ambience promoted by modern secularism, but that is more diffuse in its negativity and not specifically directed at derailing the sincere efforts of truth seeking investigators of the Restored Church.
bbell,
I think those are good points and I don’t question your experience.
But couldn’t this also be explained by the fact that the Church does discipline or even excommunicate you for “sleeping around” and doing drugs – but it never excommunicated anyone just for being a greedy materialist?
But is lust really more serious than greed in the hierarchy of sins? Or is it simply easier to identify and draw the line on?
Well WW,
If you broaden your definition to include “American Society” in addition to American government, you might find some support for your claims in the Jewish American experience.
This is an excerpt from Roger R. Keller’s comparison of Mormonism with Judaism:
This is why I am so worried about the Mormon alliance with mainline Christian conservatism. It’s a socially acceptable way for Mormons to put “being successful Americans” first, and “being devoted followers of God” second. Conservative Christianity’s primary political function in America is to provide a moral justification for being a rich American materialist. Abortion and evolution are just sideshows to distract mainline Christians from the fact that they have already lost the faith and turned unto idols. Griping about liberal moral decay in American society is just the way that a self-centered, materialist, capitalist, conservative convinces himself that he is still a moral person. After all, he’s taking a stand in the world, by golly!
Never mind the fact that, in most cases, abortion and evolution have almost zero relevance to his own personal life, or his immediate sphere of influence.
The danger to Mormonism is that we are becoming good Americans instead of good Mormons: materialistic, greedy, and self-centered. American culture is “all about me.”
And both Conservatives and Liberals have bought into that bill of goods – hook, line, and sinker.
Oh yeah,
Insert standard disclaimer: Not all conservatives/Christians/liberals are evil … don’t judge … stereotypes …
blah, blah, blah
I’m only making essentially the same assertions that ancient prophets made about our generation. And I’m sure there were plenty of people in Jerusalem and Zarahemla who told them to stop painting “good people with such a broad brush.”
Whatever. I’m tired of it. Time to stop making excuses for ourselves and start taking a hard look at who we are, and what we are becoming.
Good points both Seth and WW. I think you both bring to light dangers to us warned of in the Book of Mormon. The sins of covetousness, pride and not repenting (they all kind of overlap) are the things we are warned about bigtime in the Book of Mormon, a book for our day apparently. We are not really told that often to worry about the sexual preferences of others, but are told to watch our own thoughts and actions. Also, as Pres. Kimball told us, we are an idolatrous people, worshipping the gods of steel (military might) and pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Truly an innoculation is what we need.
Seth,
Greed and Lust are usually linked together somehow when one falls.
My post was simply about YM. By the way YM/YW are rarely disciplined for sexual transgressions. I have seen multiple YM loved back into activity after a bout of what we call girlitis. I do agree thought that Pride in all its forms is a great evil in our world and serves as a stumbling block
I agree. The liberals endorsing the free love movement are just as self-centered as their capitalist sparring partners. “Lovers of their own selves” applies across the board.
Materialism is the elephant in the room, that everyone is doing their best to ignore by constantly changing the subject.
Seth R.- Do me a favor and start yourself a blog. Or write a guest post on M*.
I’m a greedy capitalist conservative, and thus don’t find myself in philosophical agreement with you very often. But your takes are extremely well thought out and well stated. You make me think twice about my own positions on things– a healthy self-check.
I don’t like the way the initial question is framed- exteme vs. extreme. Practically, neither extreme is likely to have a significant effect on the Church or its members. Until the majority of society adopts one extreme position, debating in terms of extremes is a waste of time. Perhaps we should frame the question another:
Secular societies or religious societies- which are healthier?
Which society seems healthier today- secular Europe or religious America/Latino America?
Yeah, these terms are broad, but think about it.
There’s a lot of Euro-bashing in the bloggernacle. One can’t generalize about such a huge population. We rightly disagree when they describe all Americans as ignorant, war-mongering fundamentalists. Must we respond in kind?
Tossman,
You seem to be assuming that I have original ideas to write about. =) I’ve always been more comfortable bouncing-off the ideas of others. I’ve found that I need outside ideas to get me started typically. It’s a bit parasitic really.
And I’ll be the first to admit that I need my chain yanked from time to time. Usually, it’s Adam Greenwood who smacks me in the head, but I’ve appreciated correction from several others as well. I tend to state my views very forcefully, but typically I’m a lot more ambivalent about them than the language of the posts would indicate.
Mike,
But Europeans are just so … so … poncy. How can you resist making fun of them? =)
MikeInWeHo- I don’t recall bashing one culture or another. Nor do I recall even taking a side on the issue. If you are reading something into my post, that’s all you.
It’s interesting- in all the immigration threads I’m accused of bashing Latinos in defense of my “white European brothers.” Yet in this thread I’m accused of bashing Europe in defense of Latinos. Seems like I’m damned no matter what position I take.
It’s tough being a curmudgeon.
Tossman,
Sorry I mis-read your post. There are plenty of others who love to pile on the EU, especially in the SSM strings. “If we don’t ammend the constitution to stop SSM, we’ll wind up just like Europe….! Oh nooooooooooooooooooo! We’re as doomed as doomed can be!!!”
That kind of statement gets posted all the time.
I believe Keller was a Protestant minister before he converted to the LDS faith.
I think it’s one thing to say that greed and selfishness are necessary and have resulted in a lot of practical good in the world.
It’s quite another thing to say that they aren’t really sinful and are “non-threats.”
Although we live in a fallen world where these sorts of things are unavoidable, we still need to take very seriously, the threat these kinds of thoughts and rationales pose to our own spiritual life.
WW,
One thing that struck me in reading your statement, Mormonism is unique in history in that it came to fruition as a legitimate world religion without sanction by any particular state. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, were all very small until established by the state. Once established by the state they were generally propagated by the sword. Mormonism is unique in that it grew grassroots and not by compulsion and the sword.
Personally, I was inclined to sympathize somewhat with your essentially anti-war stance in your original post, However, greed and selfishness no sin? huh? Politics, resources, fear, leading to conflict and war are all direct consequences of these “non-threats”. Just because these factors are a fact of life in this life and a certain school of economic thought may advocate them, I find far from effective argument in the face of profound teachings of the savior. He that is greatest among you shall be your servant, Love thy neighbor as thyself, No Power or influence can or ought to be maintained by… only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”
Perhaps you feel like Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses?
Time Magazine has a great issue on the “top” 25 Evangelical leaders that promote the Reconstructionist agenda.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/
LDS are caught between secularists (social agendas are similar) and Dominionists (moral agendas are similar).
If our leaders fully adhered to the thinking of the right, we’d be seeing Rushdooney/North pamphlets handed out in our churches or talked about in conference – as they are in large Evangelical congregations.
Without their view of an established American Nation under Mosaic/Biblical law in effect that would punish them – those on the right are able to forward AND justify their agenda through elaborate corruption and backdoor laws leading to discrimination. They can still partake of secular and sinful activities, fashions, and ideas. They adhere to the view that through salvation alone, they will “be forgiven”. Like Islamic martyrs, they view their iniquities and suppression of all non-Christian Born-Agains as actions that will ultimately be glorified for forwarding His name and mission.
Many of us are not willing to study out this movement by attending: a prayer quake; Sunday service; public church sponsered conferences with regional and national speakers; or trying to unite with this group in prayer gatherings at State Capitol buildings before key votes.
Many of us do not look beyond their “basic” issues – we readily latch onto their issues without much thought as to how they might fit into our own doctrine. What if “creationism” was taught in schools – would we readily adapt to their view of creation ex nihilo and literal seven-day interpretation? What if a new Christian/American history based school opened – would we sign the faith-based statement even though it goes against our own AoF? What if the zoning committee for our community suddenly was stacked with Evangelicals – could they rezone land that would not let in meetinghouses or temples? What if there was a co-habitating registry (as being pushed in some states) – how would our single sisters and missionaries feel about having to register that they are a non-married “co-habitating” household?
We have much to contemplate…