Saturday, December 08, 2007

Rationalizing Mitt

I just dropped off a comment at the Washington Times “Belief Blog” that is another twist to my mind wrapping around a Mormon Presidency. The comment is this:

It seems you at least understand the whole "exultation" thingy, celestial sex, and the like. But here is a question worth asking:

What will the moderate Muslim's (the small minority of them at least) and our Muslims "allies" think diplomatically speaking of a man who thinks he can become a "God" in the next lifetime (although there is precedent in Mormon theology this can come sooner) when people in their countries behead or jail for such blasphemy?

An interesting question with an answer that will probably only come in time.

Another comment I left at The World According to Kimba enjoys other thoughts of mine to dissuade those above:

A "different animal" indeed. Like I mentioned on my site, if we go back through history - to our founding - some of those brave men (and women) were Unitarians. A Unitarian view of who Jesus is (compared to who Jesus said He was) is almost as heretical. (The main difference being who someone (a male Mormon) can become.) Without these Unitarian founders, we could have never done what we did those many years back. While heretical in their views, they were fine statesmen. The other Founders as well accepted them into their ranks with minor murmurings, realizing that the culture produced, much like Mormon culture, was well within the lane-lines of the American experiment. In other words, the culture produced, say, by Islam, isn't in the best interests of Western culture founded by the Grecian-Roman/Judain/Christian. The two cultures are at odds with each other. The culture "produced" by Mormonism is in the interests of our culture. While very odd in their theology, its theology still produces a people that are part of and not at odds with the American experiment.

This may not be a conversation for the here-and-now, but... as for the "Book of Stereotypes".... Jesus, unlike Muhammad, Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Joseph-Smith, Charles Taze Russel, and the many others, have never claimed to be God in the flesh. The Creator of the space-time continuum. Jesus did make this claim. This is very exclusionary in saying these other founder and "ways" are missing the mark. obviously this statement creates many questions, but the main point still remains. Jesus' claims. Either he was right, and thus a good, moral person. Or he was insane, similar to a man calling himself a pouched egg (CS Lewis), or he was lying. The latter two options reject Jesus as a good, moral teacher. In fact, Jesus said those who came before him were liers and thieves. This is very "stereotypical," it seems.

Lutherans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc, etc, all believe that Jesus is who claimed to be. Mormons add three other books to try and show he isn't who he claimed to be. Which is why they will always have the "cult" tag... until they change their theology, Like the Worldwide Church of God. They were a cult, until the church officially gave up their heretical doctrines and had some orthodox theologians come in and help them get back to the basics, what Augustine mentioned in this simple formula:

"In the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty, but in all things, charity (love)."

All denominations are Christian. Mormonism, much to the misuse of this term by Michael Medved, is not a denomination... for they reject all the essentials.

Anyways… I just wanted to get these thoughts over here on my site.