This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In preparation for the currently ongoing papal conclave, I decided to read the official rules currently in force, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, issued by John Paul II in 1996. The document contains this provision (emphasis added):
Seems simple enough right?
Whoops.
Here I was, a schmuck, reading the canonically promulgated apostolic constitution as if it mattered, as if the supposed men of God involved in this 2000-year-old institution might care about established procedures.
Sure, Francis could have changed the rules, as many popes have done throughout the centuries, but he didn’t. He either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and neither did anyone else with influence within the Vatican either. How am I supposed to take this seriously if the cardinals and popes don’t even take it seriously?
I wish Christianity were true. I really do. It would certainly make my dating life easier. I’d have a sense of purpose in life, defined rules of virtue to follow, but it just doesn’t make any actual sense. The inconsistency I cited above is relatively minor, but it is illustrative of what one finds everywhere when one digs into the claims of Christianity and treats them with the truth-preserving tools of logic. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II, Matthew 24:34, these are fundamental truth claims that can’t be handwaved away like the finer points of ecclesiastical law.
Obviously, as a Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whew) I think you're actually on the right track. It's so blindingly obvious that the Catholic church is bumbling along, with zero internal consistency, for centuries and centuries. It shows up all over. Even today, Catholics are very loud about a number of major issues, but very small numbers of actual Catholics actually agree with their own church's doctrine, much less practice it, and that's even before you look at any history at all. Don't get me wrong, I respect Catholics, I get along with many, I still view the religion as an overall net good, etc. but their doctrine is a mess. I genuinely extra respect the Catholics who attempt to pull the doctrine together into a coherent whole, but I just don't see the hand of God guiding them.
Now, doctrinally, to me, this all goes away quite neatly when you give up on the idea of the Catholic line of authority being unbroken. Clearly they strayed, it's self-evident, so my own faith has the nice idea of needing someone to restore and clarify things and have a modern guide/prophet. I'm not saying that people don't find any inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine, there's a people component to be sure, but it's several orders of magnitude less. I strongly reject this idea that doctrine is developed by groups of people hashing it out. Council of Nicea? Convened by Constantine, he basically says I don't care what you produce as long as it's something unifying, and once you do, we'll burn the writings of dissenters and exile anyone not with the program. All this to say you should meet with the missionaries :)
As a Protestant, I agree with you that the papacy is no guarantor of doctrinal fidelity. But the core question is this: The pope is said to be the vicar of Christ – is he? Flawed historical assertions and doctrinal contradictions count as evidence against the claim, but the claim itself is true or false and should be addressed as such. (Whether this is the right forum to go deep on that question is a separate issue.)
The same is true of claims about the president of the Mormon church: Is he a true or false prophet? Having a true prophet may be useful, but that doesn’t determine whether Joseph Smith and Russell Nelson qualify. Flawed historical assertions and doctrinal contradictions count as evidence here too. And I think it’s audacious to say that the LDS score well.
What about the Mormon history of pre-Columbian America, which doesn’t jive with any historical source or archeological finds? Or the book of Abraham, whose source manuscripts turned out to be Egyptian funerary texts once we could read hieroglyphs? Or the edits to the Book of Mormon regarding the nature of the godhead? Or the doctrines which were said to be unchangeable but were nevertheless changed, like plural marriage?
I believe that the idea was to have an apostolic guidance for the church as a whole but persecution, deaths, unauthorized doctrinal changes, undue pagan influences, power grabs, a view that the Second Coming was imminent, and the gradual loss of divine revelation made the church fundamentally changed and eventually bereft of authority. Perhaps some city bishops had some legitimate authority for a while, but the connection that e.g. the Bishop of Rome would have any actual special sway over the church as a whole is highly suspect, as was especially the consolidation under Constantine. The later "sins" of the Catholic church are some evidence, but not the primary evidence. I agree that to the extent historical matters should be considered in coming to spiritual conclusions, that history both theological and otherwise are fair game for examination - though my comment was more about the theological history of the Catholics than their more political/historical acts.
Getting a little off topic I guess, but in terms of Book of Mormon history, the position has long been (and is mildly supported in-text) that the people there were simply one of many living side by side. Archeologically speaking, we simply do not have anywhere close to a comprehensive survey of all peoples who lived in Mesoamerica. Among the Maya, for example, we've only excavated about 1% of the sites and of those sites only 10% of what's there, approximately. The Book of Abraham I feel was used as a starting point for inspiration on Abrahamic writings rather than a true transliteration, though admittedly there are decent reasons to think otherwise I certainly wouldn't begrudge others for believing. A few edits to a single section don't really change anything about LDS in-text our out-of-text teachings on the Trinity. Many Old Testament prophets were polygamists, so clearly it's compatible with Christianity, yes? It's I believe a plausible or even likely reading of the history that Joseph Smith was forced into accepting plural marriage (obviously it brought nothing but trouble) as part of the "restoration of all things", i.e. re-treading parts of earlier pre-Christ Christianity as part of the doctrinal point that the gospel (Christianity broadly from Adam to now) is now in its ultimate and most complete form (though some allowance is made for new knowledge, teachings, and practices to be either restored or newly given). At least under this model of Christian history, there's far less confusion over having to litigate and reexamine each and every piece of modern practice and belief - Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise - for accuracy. Study is helpful for understanding true religious principles, and might be a rewarding activity, but it is not the cornerstone of doctrine, nor is there a need for major political activism to influence church leaders at the church-wide level.
Returning back a little bit to the original point, it's amazing to me that anyone would read the Epistles of Paul and come to any conclusion other than that there were serious doctrinal misunderstandings by new converts everywhere, on top of the rampant persecution, on top of the behavior problems, on top of the cultural difficulties popping up as many new members tried to blend their previous beliefs into the new religion. The vibe is that there's definitely a bit of a mess out there, yeah? Paul was obviously, I think everyone agrees, capable of correcting misunderstandings and offering some excellent guidance, but there were only so many people like Paul, and fewer by the year. And there's little evidence as far as I'm concerned that anyone satisfactorily took his place, much less the Bishop of Rome, though a few bishops tried to a limited extent.
I don't have any particular beef with the Mormons--if anything, I admire them on a cultural level. But my understanding is that the current leadership is pretty committed to burying anything that makes the faith stand out from the undifferentiated mass of non-denominational Christianity generally.
Really, writ large, the history of Mormonism has been a history of retreat from anything that made it interesting or unique. The continued existence of Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy (in remote cities across the western United States) is clear evidence that the LDS church could have survived a steadfast refusal to conform with the demands of the U.S. government on that score. But the LDS chose growth (and financial stability) over their own revealed doctrines. More recently, the church took a strong stand in favor of traditional marriage with California's "Prop 8," only to retreat almost entirely from the issue within less than a decade (about half of Mormons today approve of same sex marriage, in complete disregard for their own history and teachings). Indeed, for most of the 20th century the LDS indulged in quite a lot of blisteringly anti-Catholic rhetoric, and mocked the wearers of crosses and crucifixes ("if they shot Jesus, would you wear an AK-47 necklace?")--only to take up the cross and incorporate "holy week" into their worship services in the 21st.
Of course the Mormons are not alone in any of this; the Great Awokening has shifted the ideological landscape a lot, such that the boggling inanity of stuff like "Queers for Palestine" has become de rigueur. But the LDS church seems to be speed-running the history of Christianity in reverse, starting as a sect of innovative and progressive doctrines (open canon, anti-slavery, apotheosis, polygamy, theocracy, miracles) then gradually reverting to a blandly Protestant cultural mean (no more polygamy, replacing "translation" with "inspiration" in explanations of the Book of Abraham, literally whitewashing their own history by painting over artwork in their temples), then landing on their own implementation of an infallible papacy (in the form of a well-heeled corporation sole).
This... probably sounds more critical than I intend it to be. Mormons are as good as any, and better than many, at building communities. Their doctrines have never been any more ridiculous than those of Catholics, or Jews, or Muslims (and if a ridiculous doctrine produces a valuable outcome, is it actually ridiculous?). North America would certainly be a more interesting place today if the Rocky Mountains had become a polygamist Mormon Theocracy, as the sect once planned. But the way history is unfolding, I would expect the LDS to be culturally and theologically indistinguishable from, say, progressive-ish Methodist congregations, within a century or two. The LDS will eventually ordain women and wed gays because their open canon gives them an excuse to do so, and their demonstrated preference is for continued growth and prosperity, not adherence to revealed doctrines. Indeed, Conquest's second and third laws of politics seems to apply:
I have seen the LDS do more in the last 20 years to appease its critics than to cater to its own existing membership (or teachings!). There is a commonplace that one should have an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out. Likewise, Mormonism's open canon was in the 19th century its evident strength, but in a world of mass media and "social justice" that same open canon has become a clear organizational liability. I am skeptical that recognizably religious Mormonism can long survive the--good, even perhaps noble--intentions of its corporate leadership.
Whether that is good or bad (or matters at all) is a separate question, of course. That parousia failed to occur promptly at the turn of the millennium came as a serious blow for many apocalyptic sects--this is, I think, an underappreciated aspect of the cultural changes that have happened since. I knew so many Christians, circa 1999, who clearly harbored serious hopes, verging on expectations, that 2000, 2001 at latest, was going to be the year the heathens burned. Churches have been forced to adapt (most have failed to do so), and the Mormons are no exception. The idea that Restorationism (of which the Mormons are an important, but not unique, example) results in "far less confusion over having to litigate and reexamine each and every piece of modern practice and belief" does not, I think, hold up to the test of history.
This isn't really possible, is it? I've been on a bit of a rabbit hole chasing down what Mormons actually think for the last few months (it's really hard to find, which is odd for a "church"), and from what I can tell their claim of even being "Christian" at all is a bit of an intentional linguistic trick.
Mormons believe in somebody they call Jesus, but they believe he was a guy who came to The United States of America about 2000 years ago and met with people living there at the time. The core of their religion is that there was a group of Jews who sailed to North America several thousand years ago, split into two groups which formed large, continent scale societies, and then went to war. There was a guy, Mormon, who wrote down some revelation on golden tablets, hid them, and then eventually an angel came to Joseph Smith in 1850 and told him where to find them.
Again, it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe. I think the mormons try to hide this on purpose because of how it comes across to people not familiar with it.
The best claim to Mormons being Christian is the everyday practical reality of being Mormon. At night you pray to “God the Father”. You ask for forgiveness of sins, something you believe is only possible through the sacrifice of “Jesus Christ”, and a request you believe is mandatory to receive “salvation”. I mean if you had to pick like ONE thing that defines Christianity, wouldn’t you say that it’s more or less exactly this thing? Either you think Jesus died for your sins, or not?
Also, gosh, you can go to the literal official website, not even the one dedicated to explaining our beliefs, and whaddaya know, right there on the front page is a section "What We Believe", with the first link in the section "Learn About Jesus Christ". Clicking this link contains such totally heretical (/s) topics such as:
Jesus’s Divine Mission
His Ministry Gave Us the Perfect Example
His Teachings Show Us the Way to Salvation
His Sacrifice Means You Can Live with God
Jesus Made Forgiveness Possible
Because of Jesus We Will Live Again Someday
You Can Follow Jesus
If you wanted details, although it's dated in a literal sense, Joseph Smith wrote out exactly an answer to this question ("What do you believe?") in 1842 and we call them today the Articles of Faith which are relatively succinct and also has the advantage of doubling as a primary source.
On a more practical level, i.e. wondering what modern practice is like, I would direct you toward the resource Gospel Principles which has 47 chapters and honestly? Having both read through it and taught lessons from it, I personally consider it the perfect balance of succinct and descriptive for probably 95% of all purposes, as well as quite honest. I'd be extremely surprised it if missed even a single notable modern doctrine or practice, because for many years it was the basis for the first year of lessons for recent converts, so there's obviously not much reason to "hide" anything there, because most of the people using the book were already baptized members. The book is also extremely careful of its wording, and contains some handy scripture (Bible and otherwise) references that offers some further clarification
What do you think Lehi did in approximate 600BC?
What do you think Joseph smith did in approximately 1830?
Who is Moroni? What did Moroni do in relation to Joseph smith?
What did Jesus do after his resurrection? Did he come to America? Who did he interact with here?
Who are the nephites? Who are the Lamanites?
Who wrote the narrative in the Book of Mormon? Who wrote the pearl of great price?
The reason that Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian, the reason that Mormons try to hide their beliefs, and the reason for things like trying to rename the church, or imply some sort of “latter day saints movement”, instead of just another example of the charismatic religious movement (there were MANY of these in the 1800s), is revealed in the answers to these questions.
Mormons should do whatever they want, I don’t have a problem with them, my frustration is the linguistic poisoning at the center of the religion. If Mormons were simply honest and upfront about what they believe, then cool, but they aren’t. It’s the same as men insisting they’re woman and instead of saying “I am a man who dresses and acts like a woman”, they say that they are women, and try to poison the language.
And I’m not saying that Christian beliefs aren’t also strange to an outsider. “I believe a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago” probably sounds just as crazy to a non Christian as “I believe a lost tribe of Israel sailed to America in 600BC, then hid some golden plates in up state New York, and eventually revealed them to a guy named Joseph Smith in 1830 who used them to make himself the central figure of a new religions”.
The difference is that Christians don’t try to hide this stuff. Mormons aren’t Christians in the same way that Muslims aren’t Christians and Christians aren’t Jews. The fact that Mormons are campaigning to convince people to call them “Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” instead of “Mormons” is dishonest on its face.
All you’ve done is mistake familiarity with openness, and mistake newness with secrecy. They are not the same. Obviously if I were to convert to Islam, I would have more homework and research to do than if I were to become a Southern Baptist, but that doesn’t somehow mean that Islam is a secretive religion trying to hide things from you…
Ironically, the push to call ourselves by the mouthful “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” was prompted by a desire to be more transparent, not less. The reason being that sometimes people thought we worshipped a god named Mormon. That’s not linguistic poisoning. It’s accuracy. Our church’s name has been identical since 1838 (first 8 years had a few variations, but never Mormon, not internally, though Smith was known to use the phrase “Mormonism” from time to time.) A fact that is betrayed by your own words (!): Joseph Smith is not “the” central figure. It’s still Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is by our own doctrine like, maybe third at best? Joseph Smith to Mormons is definitely a weaker link than Muhammad to Muslims, for example.
The precise degree of and debate over what doctrines are essential and core vs merely informative is common to all religions, but it seems surprising to me that you think you are better suited to answer this than an actual member?
Funny enough, unlike many other religions, we do actually have a standardized “worthiness interview” that asks about basic questions of faith. You can look them up. They are quite simple and are, generally, yes/no. On that basis I’d argue we are MORE transparent than other religions, where beliefs vary widely within a congregation (let alone sect or branch) even on self-admitted core topics with little to no effort at correction, and where most members wouldn’t even know where to look to find, for example, what makes a Baptist a Baptist and not a Methodist instead (at least that’s my personal experience).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well that's an accusation I've never heard before. Usually we hear the opposite. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. A good place to start is Mormonism 101, but churchofjesuschrist.org has essentially all of our teachings, including very esoteric stuff.
Yeah man, those links are exactly the problem that I'm talking about. Those links reference somebody with the name Jesus, but what they fail to mention is that they're talking about an entirely different person (who just happens to have the same name) as the person that Christians are talking about when they say Jesus.
Stuff like this:
https://news-gu.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mormonism-101#C8
No it isn't. There is a historical person who actually existed named Jesus, and he did not write a testament called "The Book of Mormon". This isn't a debate about theological interpretations, it is a historical fact.
It doesn't. It contains some things written by Joseph Smith in the 1830s in what he thought looked roughly like ancient egyptian.
Yes this is true, but what they're not mentioning on this page is that it was written in the 1830s by Joseph Smith.
This stuff is just frustrating to me. If you want to claim Joseph Smith as some prophet and start some new religion about it, then go for it. But just stop lying to people.
The rest of this page is the same sort of sophistic hand waving and not worth going through point by point.
I find Jesus writing a book that nobody's heard of not inherently goofier or ahistorical than rising from the dead. Or having communion wafers turn into his flesh. Of all the weird things people say about Jesus, writing a book that isn't in the historical record is nowhere near the top of the list of "things secular historians don't think are true about Jesus".
More options
Context Copy link
You asked for what we believe. That link describes what we believe. Nothing is being hidden.
Well, no, we believe they're the same person. You can argue they're not, but that's not our belief, which is what you asked for.
Yes, we agree on this. I think you misunderstand what a testament is. Jesus didn't write the New Testament either.
OK. You asked for our beliefs, you have them.
OK. It sounds like when you say "it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe" what you mean is that it's a bit tough to track down the apologetics addressing contradictory evidence. For that I'd invite you to check out https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/. Or, again, just ask me. You're not going to see every piece of evidence for and against a claim addressed in a post called "Mormonism 101".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, not quite. They believe all human souls, including that of Jesus, were begotten of God (and the Eternal Mother, whom they try not to emphasize too much and is, to avert a misunderstanding, not Mary), and not created ex nihilo. The incarnation of Jesus, in their view, was a repeat of an event that God the Father also underwent — they believe that God the Father has a physical body. The most intense thing that can be said about them is they are not classical theists. They believe all human beings are literally brothers of Christ, in that we are all exactly like him.
Their stoteriology is that the end result of human life is the full deification of human beings, which they call exaltation — not as an interior unification with the life of God, but as apotheosis in the original meaning. They believe faithful Mormons are destined to create their own worlds, to be gods of their own universes, even to conceive their own spirit children with their eternal spouses (thus celestial marriage).
It is, not only from a Nicene Christian but a broader Abrahamic perspective, incredibly odd.
Thanks, this is pretty accurate. I do have some nitpicks:
We "believe" this in the sense that it seems like the most likely explanation, but it's certainly not doctrine.
We're the same type of being as him, but definitely not exactly like him, nor capable of becoming like him without his atonement.
Yes, but I want to clarify that we never match or exceed God. He will always be our Father, our divine authority will always stem from him. At some point we hope to become perfect the way he is, which does not mean actually being equal to him. I'd compare exaltation to the relationship between the Father and the Son--the Son is not inferior in any tangible way to the Father, he's not more sinful or lacking any divine quality the Father has, yet the relationship (and reality) is one of subservience and fealty, and the Father will always be greater than the Son.
I'd go so far as to say we don't believe this, though it's a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
This is one of my nits to pick with mormons. The idea of calling Christians "Nicene" Christians, as if there is some alternative Christianity is ridiculous semantic poisoning. As far as I can tell the only people who use this term are Mormons.
Nicene Christians use the term for themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m sorry, but this just isn’t correct. I am a Nicene Christian, and I use the term as a proud self-description!
The truth is, there are alternative Christianities. Have been since the beginning. Gnosticism. Arianism. When we move further on in the history of the ecumenical councils, Nestorianism.
When I say that I’m a Nicene Christian, I mean to say that I believe the Council of Nicaea defines Christianity. I do not mince my words by saying this. I am not, by saying it, saying that there are other Christians that are just as good.
I’m happy to extend the term “Christian,” sociologically, to Mormons, as in a matter of history they obviously derived from Christianity. But I do not by saying this mean to say that I believe that they are right, that their views are correct, or even that they are acceptable. I reject strongly any view of the divine nature that is not classically theistic, and would even say that Mormons do not even worship the same conception of God as Nicene Christians do, and that very often Mormons do not engage with this with the intense seriousness it deserves, as the principle theological difference between them and Nicene Christians. They obviously find this offensive, but I believe the only way to be charitable is not to water things down in the spirit of “being inoffensive”, but by speaking the truth as I understand it.
That means giving them a point when they deserve it, not being reflexively hostile. What hostility I have towards the LDS church I have because I have earnestly engaged it in the spirit of charity and found it to be too distinct to reconcile with the beliefs I hold dear, and many of its historical claims impossible to reconcile with historical evidence. I do not believe Mormons are evil, or insincere, but I do believe they are mistaken — and gravely so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the Book Of Mormon is freely available as an audiobook on, for example, Apple Podcasts. I listened to the entirety of it, plus the whole Pearl of Great Price and a decent chunk of the Doctrine & Covenants. It’s not difficult for a layman to access these texts.
Is that so accessible, though?
You don't need to read the entire bible and all of the fan fictions to figure what Christians believe.
I doubt most people, even people who know lots of mormons know that "We actually think that Jesus came to America, and that there were several large lost civilizations of Jews who sailed here in 500BC" is what The Book of Mormon is actually about.
You kind of do, though, to some extent, at least for the kind of standards you're hinting at.
I mean, since we're already talking about Catholics, you could plausibly say the same thing there, no? Maybe less so for non-denominationals, but most churches have some history or niche beliefs that might be relevant to "actual beliefs". It's my understanding that a potential Catholic convert (who, by your own standards, would need to spend years of time on historical research to find out what they "really believe") is expected to spend about six months going through a catechumen. That doesn't sound too crazy or too unusual. LDS baptismal standards vary across region, but the overall new convert experience from baptism to what you might call a "full member" is mandated to last at least one full year.
And if you read the Book of Mormon, which is basically mandatory for those wanting to be baptized, exactly what you describe is found in the Introduction right in front of you... where even a quick skim would quickly demonstrate several factual errors in your summarization. I mean, if you call the literal introduction to a mandatory and fundamental text of the entire religion "hidden" I have no idea what to tell you other than that's not what the word means.
More options
Context Copy link
I didn’t need to read the entire Book Of Mormon to know that, either. You can even read just some small selections of it to get the gist of their theology, much as you can with the Bible.
Like, all of this is Google-able, Wiki-able, etc. Unless there’s some secret esoteric Mormonism going on in deep catacombs hidden not only from the public but also from run-of-the-mill members of the church — which I suppose we can’t rule out — none of the important doctrines of the church are remotely hidden from any curious outsider who is curious enough to access them. (Plus, you know, the church famously sends thousands of missionaries to publicly proselytize the faith.)
To the extent that most non-Mormons know almost nothing about the church’s theological claims is simply downstream of the fact that most human beings are profoundly incurious about other religions — particularly ones which they perceive as low-status. Hindus aren’t secretive about their beliefs, either, it’s just that almost no non-Hindus ever ask them about it, and would find a brief description befuddling.
There are plenty of things to criticize about the LDS church if one is so inclined, but “they’re hiding their beliefs from the public” is not one of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link