That’s what John Aravosis is doing here when he extrapolates the sentiment of one Mormon that Jon Huntsman should evangelize for his church in China to be a set-in-stone mandate that no matter what Huntsman says, he will do this. Huh?
Huntsman is no more bound by his church’s beliefs than anyone else in the world. It wouldn’t make sense if you changed the players and said I was bound to do something because I’m black, or if I said John would do something simply because he’s gay. That’s silly talk of the worst kind. Gimme a break.
I must admit its weird reading that kind of thing coming from someone who is part of a community that has fought for years to not be dismissed and lumped in with part of a community.
I’ve been reading John’s blog for a while, and ever since that business with the Mormons supporting Prop 8 last year, he’s been pretty virulently anti-Mormon. I’m not a fan of a lot of stuff that they do or believe in, but I get the impression that he not thinking clearly when it comes to the Mormon church.
From a link in the article OW links to:
I don’t know how one person declaring another person (and a dead person at that) to have been baptized actually means anything. It’s not like I could just go declare Mitt Romney to be a Jew, or OW could declare Jessica Alba to be his wife and *poof* it is so. The very idea seems ridiculous on it’s face.
And so does the reaction. Yes, it’s an incredibly insulting thing for the Mormons to do and they should be heavily, heavily blasted for doing it. But to react as if “Oh, noes. My Mom is stuck being a Mormon!!” does suggest, as icruise says, a real lack of rationality when thinking about them.
“Huntsman is no more bound by his church’s beliefs than anyone else in the world?”
Huh? How is a self-proclaimed member of x (x in this particular case being “the Mormon church”) not bound by the beliefs of x? If Aravosis is right about Huntsman’s Mormon faith REQUIRING him to (ab)use his position as Ambassador to China to proselytize the Chinese population, then he wrote nothing wrote in the post you cited.
Because based on what Aravosis wrote, you would have to believe that Catholics like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy are really secretly anti-choice despite their personal actions and records, simply because the church to which they belong has a different position. Its silly.
Its silly.
Organized religion in a nutshell.
Aravosis is an idiot. That is all.
I read Aravosis’s writings (not all the way through–even I have limits), and I remember that Religion (big-and-small ‘r’) is a subject not many can, or would, discuss rationally.
Religion, like any other philosophy, is a search for Truth (big-T)…an idea and ideal that is different for different folks, and can change on a daily basis, as it has (and needs) no base in Fact, only in how you personally interpret it.
It’s plain to me that Aravosis places significant importance in his Faith, and so is *really* pissed at the LDS practice of after-death conversion (not altogether different from the Christian practice of ‘Forced Conversion’ reviled in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where missionaries surreptitiously baptise poor people who come to them for food handouts), as he views the practise as ’stealing souls’.
Whatever–it’s his opinion, and his blog, so he’s entitled to do as he wishes there. He’s already taken flak for what appears to be nearly an obsession with the Conservative LDS and their politics. I suspect once he get this out of his system, he’ll find something else to comment on…hopefully with a little more detachment.
The blog post that riled Aravois was Utah state Representative Craig Frank stating this:
This morning at a press conference in Washington DC, President Barak Obama named Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. to be the new Ambassador to China. Congratulations, Governor. This is a big deal for the Governor, Utah, the United States, and…the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
Although the LDS church’s missionary program has an ecclesiastical presence throughout many parts of the world, the countries with the largest population bases (China and India) are not currently open to the church’s missionary efforts. Huntsman served his LDS mission as a 19 year old young man in the Taiwan Taipei Mission in the early 1980’s. He has since been back to the Far East on a number of occasions. Huntsman not only takes to China his political acumen but also a lifetime of membership in the LDS church. This should bode well for the LDS church’s mission to spread the gospel throughout the world, since all members of the LDS faith are under divine mandate to…”Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…” (Matt 28:19)
Huntsman’s ambassadorship not only puts him in an excellent position to address US-China relations, it puts him in an even better position to teach the gospel…in Mandarin.
It specifically states that Utah’s state Representative Craig Frank believes that Republican Huntsman is “under divine mandate” to push his religion in China.
That’s not to say that Huntsman wouldn’t show independence and not use his US government position to push his personal religion in a foreign country that is hostile to his religious beliefs.
But what fellow Mormon Craig Frank is saying is quite explicit: Huntsman is “under divine mandate” to push his religion.
Oliver misleadingly asserts the Catholic religion in comparison, specifically John Kerry.
Perhaps Oliver is still too young to remember that John Kerry caught a LOT of flack from his fellow Catholics during the 2004 election. There was even a couple of Catholic Bishops who asserted that Kerry should be refused Communion (a sacred Catholic ritual).
That didn’t prohibit Catholics from making an independent choice to vote for John Kerry in large numbers in 2004.
But has anyone looked at how “independent” Mormon voters are lately?
I respect Mormons but there is very little “independent” thinking amongst Mormons. That’s not a slam, it’s a fact. The Mormon Church is arguably far more authoritarian than the Catholic Church has been for 400 or 500 years.
And as for “Sean D. Martin’s” dismissal of concerns of Mormon’s ‘baptizing’ the dead, well, some Jews are livid about the practice. It’s not just the practice itself which offends some Jews but also the failure of the Mormon Church to live up to it’s agreements with Jews to stop the practice.
Despite the explicit agreement of the Mormon Church to stop a practice that offends another Faith, the Mormon Church has secretly continued to do that practice, which has continued to offend that other Faith.
When the Mormon Church leaders renege on clear agreements, it provides some perspective or Aravois’s ire.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036093.html
More broadly speaking, the complaint about Mormon’s baptizing the dead is that it rewrites the history of that person’s beliefs.
The Mormon Church is rewriting the history of the lives of Jews by asserting that after death those Jews became Mormons.
While “Sean D. Martin” is indifferent to rewriting history, some Jews are VERY touchy about it.
I respect Mormons but there is very little “independent” thinking amongst Mormons.
I respect Blacks but there is very little “independent” thinking amongst Blacks.
See how stupid it sounds now? It wasn’t okay when people were giving Kerry shit, nor is it okay now. Jesus.
News Ref: And as for “Sean D. Martin’s” dismissal of concerns of Mormon’s ‘baptizing’ the dead, well, some Jews are livid about the practice. It’s not just the practice itself which offends some Jews but also the failure of the Mormon Church to live up to it’s agreements with Jews to stop the practice.
…
While “Sean D. Martin” is indifferent to rewriting history, some Jews are VERY touchy about it.
I’m not indifferent to it. I said it’s an incredibly insulting thing for Mormons to do and that they should be roundly blasted for doing so. Nowhere did I suggest the reaction should be indifference. At most I said the way in which Aravosis responds show’s he’s got a very emotional reaction.
It’s an incredibly insulting thhing for the Mormons to do and I understand folks are very touchy about it. IMHO, the thing to object to is the obvious “we know better than you and we’re going to completely ignore your personal view on this very personal thing”, and not the “They’ve baptised someone as a Mormon so that person really is a Mormon now” silliness.
(Oh, and not a big deal but I’ve let you know that that is my real name so it really isn’t necessary to keep putting quotes around it. Yet you do so anyway. Should I get VERY touchy about your suggesting my real name isn’t real?) [/irony]
Oliver, comparing blacks to Mormons fails to recognize the inherent differences of a genetic trait and a religious choice.
Jon Huntsman can chose to be or not to be a Mormon but he can’t chose to be black (or gay).
In the case of Mormons, though, the Mormon Church exercises absolute authoritarian control over it’s membership in ways that the Catholic Church hasn’t in 400 to 500 years.
While the Mormon-Prophet and Catholic-Pope are comparable, the absolute power of the Mormon-Prophet far exceeds that of the modern day Catholic-Pope.
For as much respect as I have of Mormons, as a group they do NOT exercise anything near the independence of that of Catholics (or for that matter “blacks”).
It was bizarre listening to the right wing, who nearly put up as a Presidential Candidate a Mormon, Mitt Romney, who sat in the Mormon Church until he was 31 and accepted Mormon Church doctrine assert that black skin was the sign of evil, turn around and complain about Reverend Wright.
Romney was 31 in 1978, the year that the Mormon Prophet changed Mormon doctrine on black skin being the sign of evil.
Listening to Republican Mitt Romney describe the moment in 1978 when he heard that the Mormon Prophet announce the change in Mormon Doctrine was fascinating.
To listen to Mormon Republican Mitt Romney, his beliefs about race weren’t voluntary. It took a “new revelation” by the Mormon Prophet to change Mitt Romney’s acceptance of his Mormon Church’s racism.
It was chilling in a way.
Even reality defying.
It’s especially reality defying when you listen to Mormon Republican Mitt Romney explain how his father “marched with Martin Luther King.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcw0woPX5VY
That only happened in Mitt Romney’s imagination. But Romney sells the lie with an absolute straight face.
Romney BELIEVES the falsehood with absolute certainty.
Don’t underestimate the power of authoritarians or authoritarian movements.
In 1978, until he was 31 years of age, Mormon Republican Mitt Romney absolutely accepted his Church’s racist doctrine and then the instant his Prophet told him to believe something different, he did, by his own testimonial.
When you can chose not to be black, Oliver, then your comparison might have some validity.
Until then, don’t underestimate the power of the Mormon authoritarian movement.
I assure you Mormons don’t underestimate the power of their movement.
Its silly.
Organized religion in a nutshell.
Mormon religion in particular.
There is no more validity to the book of mormon than there is to Dianetics.
Oliver, you’re really equating religious beliefs with skin color? Say it ain’t so. The former involves choices (in what to believe, in how to live your life, etc)., the latter, of course, does not.