Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
It’s a valid point that I don’t know Seattle as well as most on this board.
So, is it the "contempt" that makes one an anti-Mormon? I honestly don’t know. Or is it intent?
|
They assume that if someone is evangelical about their world view and it excludes the possiblity of JS being what he said he was that that's "anti-Mormon."
James Wood refers to the "fraudulence and nonsense" at the heart of Mormonism and some here would call him a "religious bigot."
But there is no compunction about such themes as "Great Apostasy," "Restored Church," "priesthood," and "testimony."
I think even Benson and the Tanners are not really "anti-Mormon" at all in the same sense that people are anti-Semitic when they talk about Jews being greedy and shady and a Fifth Column. If you're bent on going around announcing to the world the claims Mormonism makes and aggressively proseletising those views including trying to get into their kids' heads, folks are entitled to take a hard look and engage in a reasoned dialogue.
To test religion's claims with reason and empricism is a long and noble tradition and the "restoration" of that tradition is what led to America itself. No religion gets a free pass, especially those effectively preaching a form of biblical literalism.
Mormonism's relationship with reason and modernity is of course no easier than it ever has been for any religion. It's easier for Mormonism to delude itself that it is different because it came about in the midst of the Enlightenment, in fact reacting to it, and (superficially) adapted some of its nomenclature and perspectives to its own purposes which do not differ from Mormonism's (unrecognized) forebears.