#Evangelical criticisms of Latter-day Saints | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thelatterdaysaint · 7 months ago

Text

The Mormon Truth Project: 5 Widespread Misconceptions Debunked

In recent years, Mormonism has found itself thrust into the spotlight, often facing criticism and misconceptions. The Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” has certainly contributed to this increased visibility, but it has also perpetuated some stereotypes. As a 14 million-strong religion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is frequently misunderstood. Let’s explore some common misconceptions and shed light on the reality of this faith in today’s world.

1. “Mormons Aren’t Christians” – A Matter of Perspective

One prevalent misconception is that Mormons aren’t Christians. This belief persists despite Mormons praying in the name of Jesus Christ, studying His teachings, and considering Him central to their faith.

The confusion stems from theological differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christian denominations. Many Christian leaders point to these differences as reasons why Mormons shouldn’t be considered part of the Christian tradition. Additionally, some evangelical groups maintain anti-Mormon sentiments rooted in historical prejudices.

Mormons themselves contribute to this separation by claiming their faith offers a “restoration” of doctrines lost to mainstream Christianity. This stance can create distance from other Christian denominations.

However, from a practical standpoint, Mormons engage in many recognizably Christian practices. They celebrate Christmas, read the New Testament, and center their faith on Jesus Christ. The question of whether Mormons are Christians often depends on who you ask and how they define Christianity.

2. “Mormon Women Are Second-Class Citizens” – A Complex Reality

The role of women in the LDS Church is another area of misunderstanding. While it’s true that the church’s leadership structure is male-dominated and there are elements of gender inequality, the reality is more nuanced than often portrayed.

Women in the LDS Church cannot hold the priesthood or occupy top leadership positions. The church’s teachings also emphasize traditional gender roles within families. However, Mormonism also includes progressive elements. The faith includes belief in both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, acknowledging divine femininity. Mormon history includes notable women leaders and suffragists.

Today, many Mormons identify as “Mormon feminists,” working to address gender inequalities while maintaining their faith. This internal dialogue showcases the complexity of gender issues within the religion. The rise of outspoken Mormon feminists within the church itself is perhaps the strongest rebuttal to claims of women’s oppression in LDS culture.

3. “All Mormons Practice Polygamy” – A Historical Misconception

One of the most persistent myths about Mormonism is the practice of polygamy. While it’s true that polygamy was once part of Mormon history and theology, mainstream Mormons have not practiced it for over a century. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, did introduce and practice polygamy, marrying at least 33 women. However, in 1890, the LDS Church officially abandoned the practice under political pressure.

Today, any member who engages in polygamy faces excommunication from the mainstream church. That said, some ultra-orthodox splinter groups continue the practice, which contributes to the confusion.

Interestingly, polygamy remains a complex topic within Mormon theology. The concept of eternal marriage in LDS temples leaves room for interpretation about the afterlife. Some Mormons believe polygamy may exist in heaven, while others reject this notion entirely. This theological ambiguity adds to the ongoing tension surrounding the topic.

It’s ancient history. Yes, it happened, but it’s long gone. Today’s reality is what matters in this debate.

4. “Mormons Are......

Read the full article and many more over at: https://ldsflow.com/the-mormon-truth-project-5-widespread-misconceptions-debunked/

#lds #jesus #ldsflow #christ #god #church of jesus christ of latter day saints #the book of mormon #follow jesus #jesus loves us #elder mckinley

2 notes · View notes

lowkeynando · 2 years ago

Text

contend has prosaic origins. The IRR's documentary was entitled The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim. [5] The University of Utah's student newspaper observed the absence of opportunity for Latter Day Saints to respond in the film. [6] In an article for a journal published by Brigham Young University's Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, John Gee considered IRR's publication By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson, also regarding the Book of Abraham to be a "deliberate deception"

Additionally, the Deseret News in Salt Lake City pointed out IRR's criticism of the efforts of Richard Mow of Fuller Seminary to apologize for the actions of some evangelicals towards Mormons, which he characterizes as divisive and sinful. 81 - [x] JUNGLEWOODNETHERRACKNETHERWARTENCHANTMENTTABLECHORUSFLOWERREDSTONEREPEATERREDSTONECOMPARATORTRiPWiREHOOKCOMMANDBLOCKSTiCKYPiSTONALiENSSPECiESFAiRiESDEiTiESGODSCLOWNSROBOTSANDROiDSARTiFiCiALiNTELLiGENCESBRAiNSPOWERSiNTELLiGENCEQUOTiENTSWORMSTAPEWORMSTUBESTUMORSCANCERSHOSTSENTiTiESFUNGiSPARASiTESBACTERiASAMiCROORGANiSMSMUSHROOMSSURGERiESSCiENCESPHYSiCSWiTCHCRAFTSMAGiCSVOODOOSHOODOOSWiZARDSWARLOCKSCULTSSECRETSOCiETiSALTEREGOSiNNERDEMONSCROSSROADDEMONSMEDiCALTREATMENTS CLONES

1 note · View note

demoisverysexy · 4 years ago

Text

An Open Letter to the Person who Blocked Me for Being Mormon

For context:

If you’re reading this, I hope it finds you well.

This letter is mostly for me, so I can get my feelings out. I’ve already talked about this with a few of my friends, and I’m feeling better than I was than when you blocked me. I’m still upset. Mostly because of general trends I see on tumblr of hatred for Mormons. A lot of it comes from ignorance and misunderstanding. Some of it comes from a place of genuine hurt that can’t go unaddressed. I don’t want to be dismissive of those who have faced trauma at the hands of my church. I am one of those people, and I know how deeply pain associated with my church can be. After our interaction, I felt that talking about it would help me process this.

Before I go on, I must be clear that this is not an attempt to get you to unblock me. As nice as it would be to be able to see your blog again – you’re very witty, and I enjoy your content! – I can live without it. This is more a response to the trend on tumblr specifically of hatred against Mormons, and assuming that they’re all bad people who are complicit in every single bad thing that the church does. You just happened to force me to be a little introspective about my church and my relation to it. Thank you for that.

First, however, I would like to clear up some misconceptions:

Your initial joke that prompted me to tell you I was a Mormon was a joke about Mormons and polygamy. The largest two organizations that can be classified as “Mormon,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Community of Christ (which incidentally allows for gay marriage and has female clergy, though I am of the LDS sect), both disavow polygamy. There are other, smaller offshoot Mormon groups who do still practice this, which is where horror stories of polygamists marrying teenagers arise. These people are also Mormons, though I wish they weren’t, in the same way that problematic Christian groups are Christian, though many Christians wish they weren’t.

I do recognize that mainstream Mormonism has been labeled as a cult by many people, though the reasons people provide generally don’t hold up. Often the proof that people provide of my church’s cult-like nature is to take note of corruption that can be found in almost every church. These issues – such as racism, homophobia, and misogyny, to name a few – while real and important to address do not a cult make. Sometimes the proof is to point towards practices that are demonized in my church, but are practiced in other religions with no comment, or even celebration. Other times people will point to their own experiences with toxic church congregations, and while those issues are very real, they are by no means universal. My experience growing up Mormon was a lucky one in many ways. I personally don’t think that most people who study my church from an academic vantage point would call it a cult. I would consult them on this matter. After all, someone in a cult is rather hard-pressed to be able to tell whether they are in one or not.

Another point often levied against Mormonism is how it leaves its queer members with religious trauma due to its homophobic teachings. I understand this well. I have experienced deep religious trauma associated with my political stances in favor of LGBTQ+ rights (though that wasn’t the whole story). I won’t go into detail about this right now, but suffice it to say, I had a very traumatic time on my mission that led me to a very dark place, and ended with me contemplating choices I would never be able to take back. I’m fine now of course, but I carry those memories with me.

So why would I stay despite all this? Is it because I’m brainwashed? You would have to ask a psychologist about that, but I would say probably not. I knew, and know now, that the ways I was being treated were unfair and wrong. I don’t have time to go point by point to address every grievance I or anyone else has with my church and explain my position on it, as much as I would like to clear the air once and for all on this topic so there is no misunderstanding. Here’s the reasoning that has kept me here so far:

I think that every person of faith must, at some point, deal with the problematic aspects of their church’s history and doctrine. This comes with the territory. Whether it be disturbing stories in scripture, imperialist tendencies, doctrines that chafe against us, or problematic leaders, no person of faith is exempt from wrestling with the history that accompanies their faith. I have studied my church’s history in depth. Many of the horror stories I heard were provably false. Many were true. Where does that leave me?

I believe that God is bigger and better than us. We make terrible, awful mistakes all the time. But I don’t think that makes God less willing to work with us. If anything, I think it means he wants to help us more. He wants to help us move past our histories and become better. My church has a long way to go in this regard. For too long we have been silent when it mattered, and people have been wounded by our silence. Or even the words we have said out loud! If you look at my Mormonism tag on my blog, you will see some examples of what I am talking about. I have been wounded by the things my church has said and not said. It hurts awfully, and I ache for those who have been wounded more deeply than I.

But at the same time, I cannot deny the healing my faith has brought me. Whatever problems my church has – and it has many, deep and pressing issues – it is because of my faith that I am the person I am today. I can draw a straight line from my religion to the positions I hold today. Because I am a Mormon, I became a Marxist. Because I am a Mormon, I became nonbinary. Because I am a Mormon, I became a leftist. I cannot ignore that my religion, flawed as it may be, has led me to where I stand now. I am at the intersection of the hurt and healing the church offers. It is a difficult line to walk. But I hope that in walking it, I can bring healing and love to those who hurt in the ways I do. To let them know that they are not alone, and that they have a friend who can help them wherever they choose to go.

Yes I am queer. Yes I am a Mormon. I am here because I am trying to fix things. If at some point in the future I realize that I cannot change things, perhaps I will leave. I hope it does not come to that. And things are changing. They have changed before, and they can change now. I am confident that my God is willing to lead my church where it needs to go. I hope I can help speed things along. We shall see.

But spreading unequivocal hatred and disdain for Mormons does not help those of us who are Mormon who are trying to fix things. Yes, those who have left Mormonism due to trauma need a safe place to be away from that, and acknowledging the church’s many faults can be helpful to those people. I myself have criticized my church quite vocally. But refusing to listen to the stories of those of us who choose to stay, telling others that we are evil or stupid or what have you, is also quite traumatic to us. We are people too, with thoughts and feelings. It is easy to dismiss us out of hand if you assume we aren’t.

I try to be open about my religion and political stances on my tumblr. See for yourself: It’s a mix of Mormonism, LGBTQ+ activism, Marxism, and pretty much every other leftist political position you can find. Along with all the furry stuff, of course. But despite all this, I am still terrified every time someone follows me to tell them I am Mormon. More than I am to tell them that I’m queer. Tumblr is not representative of how things work in the “real world,” of course, but I have received hatred for being a Mormon there as well. And it’s mostly other Christians. So on the one hand I’m hated by LGBTQ+ folks, on the other hand I’m hated by my church for being queer, and on the third hand (as apparently I have three hands), I am hated by other Christians. I do not face hatred to the same degree from other Christians. I saw it most on my mission. But still, it exists.

(Incidentally, Evangelicals, who you seem to have problems with, and perhaps rightly so, though I have not done a study of the matter myself, largely despise Mormons, from what I have heard. Something to consider.)

I want allies. I want help. I want understanding. If I am to push back against bigotry in my church, I need your help. I need everyone’s help. Fighting bigotry wherever we see it is a worthy pursuit, I think. And if we can succeed, we can make the world a better, safer happier place. I want to fight off the ghosts that haunt my church. You don’t have to fight them with me, but I would appreciate it if I could have your support. It would make my job much easier.

We aren’t enemies. At least, I don’t think you’re my enemy. We both have been hurt by homophobia and bigotry. We live in a capitalist hellscape where police brutality and racism are on the rise. Fascism is looming over the political backdrop, along with the ongoing threat of ecological disaster. I think we would be better off helping each other than going after each other. I ask that you please listen to us when we say you are hurting us. The Mormons you blocked knowingly followed you, an openly queer person who calls out racism and bigotry and pedophilia. Yet you assume we are in favor of those things. Someone can at once be part of an institution while recognizing it’s flaws. (Aren’t we both Americans? Why not move if we hate it so much?) And perhaps we have used the “No true Scotsman” fallacy to justify why we stay. I don’t believe I have. I don’t feel I need to.

I hope that you consider what I’ve said here. I hope we can work together. And I hope that no matter what, you find peace wherever you end up.

Yours truly,

Demo Argenti

#religion #leftism #mormonism #LGBTQ stuff #marxism #racism #misogyny #feminism #homophobia #queerstake #shouting into the void #ok to rb

11 notes · View notes

kuramirocket · 4 years ago

Text

The Iconography of Chicano Self-Determination: Race, Ethnicity, and Class

I copied and pasted this from my Mexican American studies course. This topic covers the importance of blooming Chicano art during the 1960′s and its extreme importance for Mexican Americans in expressing and determining their own culture, race, class, and ethnicity during a time when they were looked down upon, faced, racism, and discrimination and were used as scapegoats by Americans and Euro-Americans; which sadly still continues to this day.

I have included images of the art that were created by Chicanos, however, I was unable to find all of them. If you want to see the artwork I could find, please keep reading and learn more about such important history and people that fought and continue to fight against racism and Anglo/American/white supremacy.

In several cities in the Southwest and Midwest with sizable enclaves of Chicanos, there are to be found considerable numbers of images that have become leitmotifs of Chicano art. In their ubiquity, these motifs demonstrate that the Chicano phase of Mexican American art (from 1965 to the 1980s) was nationally dispersed, shared certain common philosophies, and established a network that promoted a hitherto nonexistent cohesion. In other words, it was a movement, not just an individual assembly of Mexican descent artists. In what follows, Chicano art is examined as statements of a conquered and oppressed people countering oppression and determining their own destiny, though not all the producers of these images necessarily saw their production in the political way they are framed below. Examples have been chosen specifically to show how, in response to exploitation, artists have taken an affirmative stance celebrating race, ethnicity, and class.

Race

Without setting forth theories of how and why racism is instituted and continues to exist, it can be said briefly that the Anglo-Saxon settlers of the North American colonies brought racism with them from Europe; found it useful in the genocidal subjugation of the Indian peoples and the expropriation of their lands; and practiced it in the subjugation of the mestizo (mixed- blood) Mexicans in the nineteenth century. In the 1840s, when Anglos were anxious to seize Mexican territory, racial assertions bolstered that desire.

Mexican soldiers, it was said, were "hungry, drawling, lazy half-breeds." The occupation of Mexico was in order since, as documented in the Illinois State Register, "the process which had been gone through at the north of driving back the Indians, or annihilating them as a race, has yet to be gone through at the south." In the 1930s one American schoolteacher claimed that the "inferiority of the Mexicans is both biological and class."

One of the first issues Chicano artists addressed in the 1960s was the question of their Indian heritage. The earliest expression was an embracing of pre-Columbian cultures in order to stress the non-European racial and cultural aspects of their background. Directly related to the question of racial identity, the 1969 Plan Espiritual de Aztlan, formulated at a national gathering in Denver, stated: "We are a Bronze People with a Bronze Culture."

Scenes in some Chicano art illustrate the fusing of pre-Columbian motifs with contemporary issues. One of the earliest such usages was the 1971 mural painted on two interior walls of a Las Vegas, New Mexico, high school by the Artes Guadalupanos de Aztlan. Their representation is tempered by adaptations of the dramatic foreshortening and polyangular perspective characteristic of the Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros. On one wall, dominated by feather-adorned pre-Columbian Indians, a sacrifice scene takes place. The second wall, echoing the first, illustrates modern sacrifice: a symbol of the Vietnam War, followed by a crucified Christ beneath whose arms a mother with twin babies surmounts a flag-draped coffin with the slogan "15,000 Chicanos muertos en Vietnam. Ya basta!" (15,000 Chicanos dead in Vietnam. Enough!).

Functioning in a similar vein is a 1973 poster by Xavier Viramontes of San Francisco in which the slogan "Boycott Grapes" is flanked by red, white, and black thunderbird flags of the United Farm Workers Union. Above, a briliantly colored feather-bonneted pre-Columbian warrior holds in his hands bunches of grapes from which blood drips over the words.

Some indigenous motifs illustrate the recognition by Chicano artists that modern North American Indians have been similarly oppressed. For example, Victor Ochoa rendered a modern Native American on the exterior wall of the Centro Cultural de la Raza of San Diego: the Apache chief Geronimo, whose consistent defiance of the government in the late nineteenth century serves as a symbol for contemporary resistance. Alliances between Chicanos and Native Americans appear also in a silkscreen poster produced in the mid- 1970s by the Royal Chicano Air Force (RCAF) of Sacramento. A nineteenth-century Indian is shown with painted face and a feather in his hair; half of his face is covered by a U.S. flag from which blood drips. The slogan states "Centennial Means 500 years of Genocide! Free Russell Redner, and Kenneth Loudhawk." No images of Chicanos appear in the poster; nevertheless, a Chicano presence and an endorsement of Native American struggles that paralleled the Chicanos' own are implied by the RCAF logo that appears on the poster.

Ethnicity

A multicultural and multiethnic political structure such as that of the United States is extremely likely to be large and complex enough to involve social stratification and the crosscutting of ethnicity with social inequality. Both these factors exacerbate ethnic consciousness, since the experience of discrimination is related to one's identity and thus to one's ethnicity, which is an important aspect of that identity.

There is evidence to suggest that, beginning in the late 1970s, with the possibility and actualization of social mobility for a segment of educated Chicanos, ethnicity - severed from its socioeconomic aspirations for an entire group - has become an acceptable component of dominant ideology. Nevertheless, true to form, the multiethnic political structure has exerted its de- fining and structuring powers by conflating all "ethnics" of Latin American descent into a single group designated "Hispanic." At the same time, the practice of milder and subtler stereotyping continues to be exercised as the occasion arises.

When Anglo-Americans first began to penetrate areas of the Southwest, then part of Mexico, many points of disagreement became apparent. The Anglos spoke English, were primarily Protestants, came from primarily southern states, and were proslavery; the Mexicans were Spanish-speaking, Catholic, and opposed to slavery. Their diets were different, their family attitudes at variance, and their racial stock diverse. As conquerors, the Anglo-Americans attacked not only the political and economic power of the former Mexican territory but the culture of its inhabitants. "Colonialism," said Frantz Fanon, "is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip.... By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.” As the dominant society and controller of power, the Anglos continued their attack on Mexican culture from the time of penetration to the present-through stereotypes, the prohibition of spoken Spanish at schools, and the scorning of cultural manifestations. Chicano artists therefore attacked stereotypes, insisted not only on the use of Spanish but also on the validity of "interlingualism," and stressed the celebration of cultural symbols that identified their ethnicity.

The stereotype, critic Craig Owens writes, is "a form of symbolic violence exercised upon the body [or the body politic] in order to assign it to a place and to keep it in its place. [It] works primarily through intimidation; it poses a threat ... [it] is a gesture performed with the express purpose of intimidating the enemy into submission." The insidious aspects of such gestures is that they "promote passivity, receptivity, inactivity-docile bodies.... To become effective, stereotypes must circulate endlessly, relentlessly throughout society" so that everyone may learn their significations. It is abundantly clear that the dominant culture persistently considers cultural traits differing from its own to be deficiencies; the cultures being declared deficient (Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Filipino, and hundreds of Native American groups) are considered so with respect to Anglo culture - a reflection of the ideologies that have served to justify the relationship of inequality between European and Third World peoples.

As an image, the Virgin of Guadalupe has a long history in Mexico as the nation's patron saint. In the United States it has been carried on all farm worker demonstrations. It is a constantly repeated motif in artworks of all kinds, an affirmation of institutional and folk Catholicism. The institutional aspect of the Guadalupe began in 1531 as part of the evangelical process directed at the indigenous people by the Spanish Catholic Church. Evangelization was accomplished by means of a miraculous event: the apparition of a morena (dark-skinned) Indian Virgin to a humble peasant, Juan Diego, at Tepeyac, site of the shrine dedicated to the benevolent Aztec earth goddess Tonantzin - or "our mother."

A series of paintings and mixed- media works done in 1978-79 by the San Francisco artist Yolanda Lopez takes the Virgin through a number of permutations. In one she addresses the syncretic nature of Mexican Catholicism, identifying the Guadalupe with the Aztec earth goddess Tonantzin by surrounding the latter with guadalupana symbols of mandorla, crown, star-covered cloak, crescent moon, angel wings, and four scenes from the Virgin's life.

In others of the series, she places her grandmother, or her mother, or a modern Mexican Indian woman and child, or the artist herself as a runner, in various ensembles combined with the Virgin's symbols - a total secularization. When charged with sacrilege, Lopez defended her images as those of "Our Mothers; the Mothers of us all."

The syncretic revival of Coatlicue/Tonantzin in conjunction with the Guadalupe pays tribute not only to the racial and religious affirmations of the Chicano movement but to the particular idols of feminist artists as well.

Among ethnic affirmations that appear in Chicano artworks in response to scornful denigration from the dominant culture are the inclusion of such foods as the humble tortilla, bean, chile pepper, and nopal (prickly-pear cactus); the use of the Spanish language in texts; the rites of folk healing among rural Mexicans; the image of the calavera (skull or animated skeleton) as a death motif; and the celebration of the Dia de los Muertos.

Since the early 1970s Dia de los Muertos ceremonies have been celebrated increasingly in the Chicano barrios of large cities, sometimes with processions. Home altars associated with the Dia de los Muertos were revived by Chicanos for gallery display, using the folk crafts and traditional format but also introducing contemporary variations. One example, by San Francisco artist Rene Yafiez, includes images of Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, and skeletons, and a hologram within a domed form of El Santo - a mysterious and legendary Mexican wrestler of the 1940s whose trademark was a silver head mask slit only at the eyes, nose, and mouth, and who maintained his anonymity. On this cloth-covered altar, accompanied by two candlesticks made of twisted wire "flames," El Santo has truly become "saint" as well as an icon of popular culture. Like Lopez's Guadalupes, Yaiiez's altar has been divested of any religious intent.

Although the Mexican presence in the United States predates the Anglo, it has constantly been increased and rein- forced by Mexican immigration to pro- vide rural and urban labor. The greatest movement of people north was during the years of the Mexican Revolution, roughly 1910 to 1920, and many of these immigrants headed to the big cities of Los Angeles and San Antonio where a particularly urban ethnic expression arose by the 1940s: the Pachuco. The most famous (or infamous) attack against the Pachucos was that known as the "Zoot Suit Riots." Fanned by the Hearst press in 1943, xenophobic U.S. servicemen invaded the barrios and downtown areas of Los Angeles to strip and beat the zoot-suiters in the name of "Americanism." (This was the same period in which Japanese in the U.S. were herded into concentration camps.

Some Chicanos have turned the Pachuco into the status of a folk hero - as did Luis Valdez in 1978 in the play Zoot Suit, where the proud, defiant stance of the character created by Edward James Olmos epitomizes this. El Pachuco, in the play, becomes the alter ego of Mexican-American youth, the guardian angel who represents survival through "macho" and "cool hip" in the urban "jungle" filled with racist police, judges, and courts. In the 1940s a policeman actually stated that "this Mexican element considers [fisticuffs in fighting] to be a sign of weakness ... all he knows and feels is the desire to use a knife ... to kill, or at least let blood." This "inborn characteristic," said the policeman, makes it hard for Anglos to understand the psychology of the Indian or the Latin. The "inborn characteristic" is a reference to pre-Columbian sacrifice, especially of the Aztecs, and the inference, of course, is that since the Aztecs were savages, so are their descendants.

Class

With the Anglo conquest in 1848 (Mexican-American war), some Anglos married women from wealthy Mexican landowning families to form a bilingual upper class (in southern Texas and California, particularly), but by and large Mexicans in the Southwest were stripped of their land and proletarianized. As vaqueros (the original cowboys, as distinguished from the elegantly dressed charros of the upper classes), as miners, as members of railroad section gangs, as agricultural laborers-and more recently as industrial and service workers - Mexican Americans and Chicanos have been mostly of the working class.

Emigdio Vasquez of Orange, California, fills his murals and easel paintings with both well-known and anonymous heroes of the agricultural and industrial working class derived from historical and contemporary photographs, but without the impersonality of photorealism. His mural introduces an Aztec eagle warrior, a Chicano, and a Mexican revolutionary at the left, followed by a railroad boilermaker, a rancher, a miner, and migrant crop pickers. The procession ends with portraits of Cesar Chavez and a representative of the Filipino workers in the fields of Delano, California, who formed an alliance with the Mexican workers to set up what, in the 1960s, became the United Farm Workers Union

The magazine El Malcriado with caricatures by Andy Zermeno and reproductions of Mexican graphics. During the course of a very effective grape boycott, for example, the Nixon administration in the 1960s increased its purchase of grapes for the military forces. In one issue of El Malcriado Zermefio shows Richard Nixon himself being fed grapes by a fat grower, who emerges from his coat pocket, while his bare feet trample out the "juice" of farm workers' bodies in a wooden vat. On the ground, in a pool of wine/blood, lies a dead body labeled "La Raza." The legend across the cartoon reads "Stop Nixon." Another cartoon addresses the dangers of pesticide crop spraying. In it a gas-masked aviator sweeps low over fleeing farm workers while clouds of poison envelop them. Rows of graves line the background.

Other aspects of labor that have found their way into Chicano art include the steel mills of Chicago, the garment- industry sweatshops of Los Angeles, and the Mexican maids (often undocumented) in Anglo households whose vocabulary is limited to the household and for whose employers little books of Spanish phrases for giving orders have been printed.

In recent years, Chicano artists have become increasingly involved with the question of undocumented workers crossing into the United States to supplement their inadequate Mexican income. Although these workers are secretly recognized by U.S. employers as beneficial to the economy (and business profits), the flow is unregulated and, in times of depression or recession, the workers are scapegoated in the media to divert unemployed U.S. workers from recognizing the source of their own misery. In this ideological campaign, the border patrol of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) plays a brutal role by rounding up and harassing the Mexicans.

The sculptor David Avalos of San Diego has made this theme a central part of his artistic production. In a mixed-media assemblage, Avalos combines an altar format with that of a donkey cart used for tourist photographs in the commercial zone of the border town of Tijuana, Mexico. His sardonic sense of humor is expressed in the sign painted before the untenanted shafts of the cart: "Bienvenidos amigos" (Welcome friends) - usually addressed to the U.S. tourist but not, of course, to the Mexican workers. The upper part of the shaped like an altar with a cross above and nopal cactus on either side below two votive candles, has been painted as a flower-filled landscape with barbed wire within which an INS officer searches an undocumented worker whose raised arms echo a crucifixion scene.

In poetically articulating the importance given the class struggle by Chicanos, the Plan Espiritual de Aztlan said the following: "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops, and not to foreign Europeans." The plan called for self- defense, community organizations, tack- ling economic problems, and the formation of a national political party. It called on writers, poets, musicians, and artists to produce literature and art "that is appealing to our people, and relates to our revolutionary culture.”

In conclusion, it can be said that Mexican-American and Chicano culture in the United States has been characterized by three manifestations that of cultural resistance (which started at the time of the first contact with Anglo-American penetration of the Southwest); cultural maintenance, which includes all aspects of ethnicity; and cultural affirmation, which celebrates race, ethnicity, and class.

4 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 5 years ago

Photo

Ordet (1955, Denmark)

By the 1950s, Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer had made eleven films. However, his last three works were victims of circumstance. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) consistently ranks high in film critics’ lists of the greatest movies ever made, but it offended ardent French nationalists who resisted the idea of a Dane directing a movie about one of the nation’s secondary patron saints. Vampyr (1932), in its stillness and languor befitting its disturbing atmosphere, was despised by audiences – including a riot from Viennese moviegoers demanding a refund – expecting more action. Day of Wrath (1943) released a firestorm of controversy in Nazi-occupied Denmark because of its allegory about living under an authoritarian regime. All three of these films were commercial failures. All three of these films are today considered cinematic exemplars.

Danish movie producers might have sneezed, claiming imaginary allergies, at the notion of financing the next Dreyer film, but the Danish government decided to reward Dreyer – struggling with finances after World War II – with a lifelong lease to the Dagmar, the state arthouse movie theater. With a morsel of the Dagmar’s profits, Dreyer sought a project he could make on a shoestring budget. Dreyer’s twelfth film would be Ordet (“The Word” in English), based on a play of the same name by Lutheran pastor Kaj Munk. Ordet is a severe film that never loses hold of an attentive viewer. It contains a provocative ending that cannot (and will not) be spoiled, and it is an ideal follow-up to The Passion of Joan of Arc and Day of Wrath in that this piece examines the nature of faith. Instead of probing why the film’s characters believe (or don’t believe) in God, its focus is instead on how the characters express their belief.

In the autumn of 1925, widowed Borgen family patriarch Morten (Henrik Malberg) is a devout farmer soon to be busy with doting on his third, incoming grandchild. Morten has three sons: his eldest, Mikkel (Emil Hass Christensen), is agnostic, married to Inger (Birgitte Federspeil), and the couple have taken care of Morten’s two grandchildren; middle son Johannes (Preben Lerdorff Rye) went mad studying Søren Kierkegaard’s texts and now believes himself to be Jesus Christ; and youngest son Anders (Cay Kristiansen), the center of the film’s attention for a plurality of its runtime, is lovesick. The entire Borgen family lives under the same roof – creating tension, but Morten is nevertheless proud of “Borgensfarm”.

Anders and Anne Petersen (Gera Nielsen) wish to marry. Anne’s father Peter (Ejner Federspiel), is the local leader of the conservative Inner Mission sect of Lutheranism; Anders and Anne correctly believe he will oppose the marriage. Peter’s standoffish rejection inspires Morten – also originally in opposition – to change his mind. He stomps over to Peter’s residence, arriving mid-sermon, and failing to sway his friend. Peter’s telephone rings as they argue, and Peter must bear news of a family emergency at Borgensfarm.

Pacing and an intricate plot are of no concern to Dreyer. For the film’s opening two-thirds, Dreyer – who wrote the adapted screenplay – takes all the time needed to let the audience know the lives of the Borgens. The love shared between all three generations of the Borgen family is never questioned, although their understanding of and relationship with God differs. Because of my lack of religious belief, I do not know how to accurately describe Dreyer’s comparison of Morten and Peter other than the former is less beholden to religious dogma than the latter. The agnostic Mikkel believes God as essentially dead, forsaking long ago the children of Earth to the kindness and cruelty of their neighbors. No one in the Borgen household condemns or lampoons Mikkel for not believing. Certainly not Inger, who sympathizes with this struggle of faith. Not even Johannes, the most difficult son to truly understand. Johannes, speaking Jesus’ words from scripture and words that one could imagine Jesus might have said in rural 1920s Denmark, appears as a cloud-gazing, simply-clothed itinerant by day. His words are lofty, his speech deliberate, his empty gaze distancing him from those who surround him. He asks others to pray and believe, never wrathful if they do not listen or heed his advice. By night, he returns home as he always has done. Though he no longer addresses his father, brothers, sister-in-law, and nieces as his father, brothers, sister-in-law, and nieces, they still treat him as family – even though they do not accept him as Christ. For Anders, he is obviously preoccupied with the woman he loves.

Ordet is structured around the domestic lives and habits of its characters – it is akin to free verse poetry, resisting any attempts at novelistic analysis. Characters fully express themselves, and dialogue never overlaps between speakers (even in argument). There is silence after completed statements of opinion and revelation. In that silence, Dreyer’s camera captures the listener’s reaction (except for Johannes, who does not visually react): contentment, disbelief, amusement, concern, horror, understanding. This is executed in the mostly empty spaces of the Borgen household, against clear backdrops. In the dialogue pauses during and between conversations, all one can hear is ambient noise: the floorboards creaking as a character is making their way across the room, the clock ticking in the parlor room, someone shuffling positions in their chair. Cinematographer Henning Bendtsen (1959’s Boy of Two Worlds, 1991’s Europa) keeps his camera distant – of Ordet’s 114 total shots (averaging more than sixty seconds each between cuts), only three are close-ups. It is as if there is a presence accompanying the characters even in the most ordinary scenes, but that presence is something unknowable, something beyond an individual’s understanding of God.

Bendtsen’s mastery of mise en scène (a concept that is generally defined as the combination of set design, shot composition, and actor placement to empower cinematic or theatrical art) culminates when Mikkel’s oldest daughter, Maren (Ann Elisabeth Groth), walks into the parlor room to see her uncle Johannes waiting in the dark. Inger has gone into labor; her pregnancy endangering her life. Maren has overheard how perilous her mother’s situation is from the adults and cannot sleep.

youtube

She asks Johannes if her mother will die soon; he responds, “Do you want her to, little girl?” The camera cuts. “Yes, because then you’ll bring her back to life, won’t you?” It is a curious response that raises unanswered questions how Mikkel’s two girls view Johannes as an uncle and as a self-proclaimed Christ. The others will not allow me to perform this miracle, notes Johannes, as the camera begins to slowly revolve around them. Maren and Johannes have a late-night conversation about what happens when a mother goes to heaven and miracles. The gradual dolly shot going across Johannes and Maren’s front sides display the empty depths of the parlor room, suggesting something there. Again, it suggests something beyond our conception of God. Maren and Johannes’ conversation adds to this, as Johannes comforts Maren, imparting that mothers will be with their children even in death, without the stress of other things during the day. In three minutes, a creaking floorboard, ticking clock, Johannes’ blank face, and the familial tenderness between the two actors have encapsulated what Ordet conveys to open-minded viewers of all faiths.

All of this is demanding, in different ways, for the acting ensemble and the audience. In many films (especially today’s cinema), editors will cut quickly from reactions to dialogue or during dialogue – serving to either undermine an actor’s ability or conceal their shortcomings. Because of the camerawork and minimal editing, there is little room for any mediocre acting to hide in Ordet (which contains stellar performances from its ensemble), a production that asks its actors to inhabit their characters for lengthy stretches without a cut. In a way, this harkens to Ordet’s background as a stage play, but the film adaptation does not feel stage-bound. For the audience, the barely moving camera and thoughtful pace can be an impediment to the impatient. But I suspect many viewers – as I did – will have difficulty unpackaging Johannes. Johannes, with all credit to Preben Lerdorff Rye, seems like he accidentally walked onto the wrong movie set and began acting thinking he was shooting for that other production. That last sentence could be construed as disparagement, but it is not – Rye’s performance befits the character, and Dreyer’s intention to perplex viewers with Johannes’ presence is controlled and purposeful.

Johannes’ presence in Ordet strikes at unsettling ideas for Christians and non-Christians alike, and these conflicting ideas are integral to the film’s controversial final ten minutes. In contrast to Morten’s comfortable, undemanding religiosity and the Inner Mission’s stringent emphasis on dogma, Johannes’ claims to be Christ is unnerving. The New Testament is filled with parables, gospels, and miracles told and performed by Christ. The Borgen family and the Inner Mission sect adherents would rather Jesus be dead, with God’s physical embodiment and judgment removed from the corporeal world humans share, than believe Johannes to be the son of God. Every character in Ordet except Johannes believes that the days of God’s miracles have passed; to some viewers, the film may seem to endorse this view. But Dreyer’s intentions are not to evangelize on behalf of any Christian belief – Dreyer, according to film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, was not religious and his occasional visits to a French Reformed church were attempts to familiarize himself with Christian colloquialisms for his film projects. Dreyer wants to understand how religion plays a role in the lives of the Borgens and the film’s secondary characters and how they express their faith. He succeeds.

By the time Ordet’s final act begins, the viewer is probably still wondering how such an apparently simple film that may have bored them in the opening half-hour has convinced them to finish it – barreling into the thickets of one’s soul with unexpected force. Dreyer and the actors have outlined their characters completely, allowing observant viewers intuit each character’s reactions to the mundane and the sublime. The film’s paradoxical and transcendent conclusion provides these characters and the audience an ending that we desperately desire, but also challenges that desire to question our faith.

For the first time since the silent era, Carl Theodor Dreyer had made a film that was instantly acclaimed by critics and audiences in Denmark and abroad – including receiving the Golden Lion at the 1955 Venice Film Festival and a joint Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Film shared with four other movies. Despite Ordet’s success, Dreyer would continue to struggle in finding funds to make another film. Dreyer made only one more film in Gertrud (1964), and a long-gestating project about Jesus (no surprise that Dreyer would consider making such a film) never came to fruition, although a manuscript outlining the film was published in 1968.

As someone who was never raised with much of an understanding of the Abrahamic religions, I nevertheless find films commenting about the nature of religious belief fascinating. Almost all these films, due to demographics and religious history, have been within Christianity’s folds. Too often faith is held as a nightstick for comic or dramatic purposes in narrative art – and this sort of art is neither challenging nor rewarding for anyone. In recent years, I have found glorious exceptions from Old Hollywood and in non-English-language cinema that put to shame the evangelical-specific, exclusionary present of the American Christian film industry. Ordet is arguably one of the most exacting and illuminating religious films ever made. Late in Ordet, Dreyer’s film finds itself in a wallow of despair and ends with spirits exultant. Its ending – one that I desired – still leaves me uplifted and horrified.

My rating: 10/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

#Ordet #Carl Theodor Dreyer #Henrik Malberg #Emil Hass Christensen #Birgitte Federspiel #Preben Lerdorff Rye #Cay Kristiansen #Ejner Federspiel #Gerda Nielsen #Henning Bendtsen #Kaj Munk #TCM #My Movie Odyssey

4 notes · View notes

magnetothemagnificent · 3 years ago

Text

Of course. Catholic and all Christian history is steeped in antisemitism. It wasn't until the 1960s that the Catholic Church admitted that Jews didn't kill Jesus, but they didn't do a damn thing about reparations for the 2000 years of genocide and violence that they perpetuated. The Vatican still has centuries of Jewish heirlooms and religious artifacts that were accumulated through years of expelling Jews and looting their property, especially from the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the Holocaust.

And it's not just Catholicism. Martin Luther was a prolific antisemite, and the antisemitism perpetuated by the Nazis was the cumulation of German Protestantism. Evangelical Christians today love stoking the conflict in the Middle East, because their hope is that Muslims and Jews engage in a world war to bring on the apocalypse, and then all non-Christians will be wiped out. Church of Latter Day Saints members (Mormons) believe they can baptize dead Jews, including Anne Frank, and prey on living Jews for conversion. And of course Messianics lie and call themselves Jewish for the sake of preying on Jews, and appropriate closed Jewish practices and customs.

And all branches of Christianity proselytize to Jews because they believe we are inherently incomplete and sinful without the "light of Jesus."

And yes, Jesus was Jewish, but the myths surrounding Jesus are vehemently antisemitic. Whether or not Jesus actually existed is besides the point, the fact is that the man Christianity paints as Jesus was an antisemite, and the myths surrounding him are antisemitic. The "money lenders" Jesus demonized weren't greedy, they were actually money lenders who converted Roman currency to Jewish currency so that impoverished Jews could buy offerings for the Temple. In the times of the Temple, there was a system of money redistribution to ensure that even the poorest Jews could participate in worship. And the phrase "money lenders" is a misnomer because the Kohanim could not have been money lenders since lending money is forbidden. The "Good Samaritan" story is a story that demonizes Jews and praises the Samaritans, who ended up aligning themselves with the Romans to fight the Jews. (This isn't anything against modern day Samaritans, I love you guys). The mythology of Judas is a plain and simple antisemitic libel. The way Judas is depicted is a classic depiction of a conniving, homo-leaning Jewish man with dual loyalties. Just go ahead and read the New Testament critically.

It's not a matter of whether Christian leaders "can" be antisemitic, but only a matter of "when" they say the quiet part out loud.

Banish the idea that all antisemites look like Nazis.

Antisemitism is pervasive in every culture and people aware of Jewish people's existence.

Yes, some antisemites look like white European neo-Nazis, but...

A lot of antisemites look like an atheist influencer who mocks Judaism as a "gotcha" to Christianity.

A lot of antisemites look like a lady at Church who talks about how much she "loves Jews" because "Jesus was Jewish."

A lot of antisemites look like a political commentator talking about the "globalists" and the "secret cabal controlling the government and Hollywood."

A lot of antisemites look like your gay friend who says he can't be antisemitic because he's gay and "the Nazis killed gay people too."

A lot of antisemites look like social justice advocates who will advocate for every marginalized community but will stay silent as soon as they are confronted with the antisemitism in their own circles.

A lot of antisemites look like fandom bloggers who think it's funny and original to call Jewish features "feral" or "sleepy" or "sneaky" or "rat-like" or "creepy".

People who want to deny their own antisemitism will push the idea that only Nazis are antisemites.

#antisemitism #christian antisemitism #christian hegemony #christianity #history #jewish history

15K notes · View notes

trberman · 9 days ago

Text

Weaponizing Social Media: How Toxic Apologetics Threaten Faith and Testimony of Latter-day Saints

Photo by Sander Sammy on Unsplash Navigating Faith in the Digital Age: Defending Truth Against Online Attacks In an era where social media amplifies criticism and contention, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints face an increasing wave of digital opposition. From historical distortions to modern ideological pressures, faith is often put on trial in the court of public…

0 notes

mindfulldsliving · 23 days ago

Text

Infinite Regression in LDS Beliefs: Speculation vs. Doctrine

In a recent post published at the Life After Ministry blog, “Who is the LDS Heavenly Father’s Father?“ the contributing writer quotes Orson Pratt from the Seer, p. 132: We were begotten by our Father in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by still a more ancient Father Critics, like Life After Ministry,…

#Bible #Biblical roots of LDS theology #Biblical support for LDS theology #Blake Ostler monarchical monotheism #Christianity #Critics of LDS infinite regression #Critiques of Mormon theology debunked #Early Mormon theological explorations #Eternal progression in Mormonism #Exploring Mormon beliefs in depth #False claims about LDS doctrine #God #Godhead in LDS theology #How Mormons view Jesus Christ #Infinite regression of gods #Jesus #Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse #Latter-day Saint theology #LDS beliefs and doctrine #LDS divine council #LDS infinite regression explained #LDS interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:2-5 #LDS speculative teachings vs official doctrine #LDS understanding of divine nature #LDS understanding of salvation #LDS view of grace and works #LDS vs Evangelical beliefs #LDS vs traditional Christian God concept #Life After Ministry Mormon critique #Misconceptions About LDS Beliefs

0 notes

arieso226 · 4 years ago

Text

Humor vs. Religion

There are paradoxes between such serious topics, as nothing is supposed to be considered funny when we’re talking about religion, but as we progress throughout the modern 21st century, humor and comic strips have been presently active and tolerated, at most. ‘’[1]The normative view is that religion is a serious and profound human concern, deserving respect and generating awe. This normative prescription does not deny that many people, including clergy, display a certain sense of humor about religion. However, treating religious matters with too much frivolity or making religious jokes verging on profanation may lead to rebuke. This form of comedy—printed cartoons from the comic pages of newspapers—provides insights into the intersection of humor and religion. We also attempt to develop some generalizations about the role of religious messages and symbols in cartoons.’’ The discourse of the ‘sacred’ has become the talk of the past two centuries, with many stereotypes coming from it.

For instance, the Simpsons’ character, evangelical Ned Flanders, is a popular icon and stereotype for ‘overzealous religious men/women’. ‘’[2]The Simpsons’ portrayal of religion in America has been used to illustrate everything from the revelation of God’s grace (Dark 2002) to religion��s failure in the face of science (Delaney 2008). While each commentator takes their own particular stance on The Simpson’s depiction of religion, there is frequently a conflation between The Simpsons’ satire and reality. That is, The Simpsons’ depictions of religion matter because they are treated not as frivolous cartoon humor, but as satires which criticize competing moral and civic perspectives of religion’s relevance in the United States.’’

Religious themes take an interesting turn in comedy, as every good joke starts with the truth as it helps some people cope with life. ‘’[3]Humor is a form of self-expression. The jokes we tell and laugh loudest at giving clues to our central preoccupations, needs, and frustrations. It is, therefore, possible to use humor preferences as an indirect means of assessing personality (Eysenck and Wilson, 1976). If jokes are split into three very broad categories—sexual, aggressive, and nonsensical—people who permissive and high in libido (especially men) laugh most at the sexual jokes, people who are overly aggressive (as measured by hostility questionnaires) are most amused by aggressive humor, while controlled, conventional, or ‘respectable’ people go for the relatively harmless nonsense jokes. The fact that humor functions as a form of ‘release’ has been demonstrated by studies in which the motivational state of the subject is made angry by deliberately cussed behavior on the part of the experimenter’s accomplices, this will selectively enhance the environment of hostile humor.’’

Of course, some critics don’t exactly like humor, or feel that it has any real basis on religious matter. ‘’[4]Religion, for the most part, has not been kind to humor. The early rabbis condemned jesting and laughter as did the church fathers. Rabbi Akiva said, ‘Jesting and levity accustom a person to lewdness.’ Saint John Chrysostom asked, ‘Christ is crucified and doest thou laugh?’ Those fixated on the world-to-come have little sympathy for the distractions of the world in which we live. In this respect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint is no different from any other. Salvation is a serious business and the institutions, offices, and practices that ensure salvation merit reverence—not ridicule. But a church is not simply a bundle of beliefs and ritual practices. It is organized for and by people, and those people, whether they like it or not, must work out their salvation in this world. Thus, as examples in this article demonstrate, a bishop, who is supposed to be a wise and effective leader, an inspiration to his ward, can be a fool or philanderer.’’

In mythology, many characters, including gods, use humor or ‘charm’, which makes the story much more interesting to the reader and the audience. It spins the story along; comedy is a great form of expression, especially when it is used day by day, especially in what is seen in a ‘serious’ society or used for serious topics. ‘’[5]The Nez Perce tribe are a tribe of Indians who in pre-White days inhabited parts of southeastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and northern Idaho south of the Coeur d’Alene county. At present most of the members of the tribe live in Idaho in Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Idaho counties. I [author] have classified the humor in the Nez Perce myth body into six different categories: (1) the humor of the pompous or stupid individual who comes to grief; (2) the trick, including transformations and practical jokes, (3) the obscene, (4) other incorrect or eccentric social behavior, (5) humor following from a lack of knowledge, real or pretended, and (6) sarcasm or irony. In general, humor or language, which Gladys Reichard distinguished from the humor of the situation in the Coeur d’Alene mythology, tends to fall in the fourth category. Humor is undoubtedly the deepest and most vivid element in this mythology.’’ Many mythologies have tricksters, who are basically the president of the humor club, or what people or other characters call, ‘up to mischief’. Not only do they prolong the story, but they also change the society, as it could always be better. Coyote, belonging to the myths seen above, ‘‘has a sufficient compound of vainglory, stupidity, sexuality, and gluttony within his character to make his downfall a humorous element in a story without his actually indulging in any character somewhat like a clown in a circus whose very appearance brings laughter even before he has done anything to merit such a response. This humorous quality which is inherent in Coyote’s character that may well account for his appearance in a large number of stories in which he plays only a minor function. He adds a spice of humor and interest to the story simply by his presence.’’

Humor themes may change because the originally ridiculed objects/behaviors have changed to reflect dominant values and hence are no longer defined as deviant. On the other hand, thematic change may reflect a change in the values themselves; what was once defined as deviant now represents the accepted status quo. In conclusion, religion and humor, once two separate topics created by humanity but were called paradoxes, the ‘sacred and serious’ and the ‘profane and humorous (mischief) are now seen together, hand in hand. Each subject, like science, religion, art, math, all have stereotypes, and we could either dwell on those failures or laugh and learn from them.

0 notes

lowkeynando · 2 years ago

Text

1 note · View note

faithfulnews · 5 years ago

Text

LDS church leaders enact a major breakthrough on secrecy next Wednesday

Mitt Romney’s explanation that he voted to expel President Donald Trump as a duty to God, followed by the president’s religious scorn, renews interest in the senator’s well-known devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Journalists also need to know that the nation’s fourth-largest religious body will also be in the news on February 19 for a very different reason. For the first time it will grant members (and thus the media and the public) full access to its governing rulebook.

This is a major breakthrough. The General Handbook prescribes the exercise of powers, procedures, and policies that define the church. The quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism says it is “pre-eminent among Church publications” as “an authoritative guide.” But the contents were long kept secret except for those appointed to church offices.

Religion News Service’s “Flunking Sainthood” columnist Jana Riess, author of the 2019 book The Next Mormons (Oxford), noted that since only males hold office, as a woman she’s been denied access to policies “that potentially affect my life” and open access “helps to empower the general membership” of both genders.

We’re dealing here with the most secretive of America’s major religions.

Its strictly-held financial information is the stuff of legend. The texts of the sacred rituals in temples are kept confidential, and non-members and church members who lack their bishop’s approval cannot attend. (There’s special angst when non-LDS family members cannot witness temple weddings.)

Likewise, the Handbook was carefully distributed with numbered copies that were to be destroyed when no longer in use. (The Guy is forever grateful to the source who provided the 1989 and 1999 editions, which were essential for co-authorship of Mormon America.)

Handbook secrecy hit the news in 1999 when the Web site of Utah Lighthouse Ministry, an evangelical LDS critic, posted the 17 pages on how to sever church membership. A church agency charged the ministry with copyright violation and got a federal court order not only to remove the Handbook excerpts but omit references to other sources of Handbook material.

The 2010 edition, volume one, on the governing hierarchy’s operations, remained off limits except for office-holders, while the Handbook 2 volume was available online. In next week’s release, the two volumes will be combined into one and fully available online to all.

This release should produce stories galore, for those with the patience and skill to parse religious language.

Check coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune and church-owned Deseret News, and details in the church’s own press release to be posted at newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. The treatment or total omission of Scouting will obviously be newsworthy, since 106 years of close collaboration ended in January due to differences over sexuality and gender issues.

The media may want to compare the 2010 and 2020 wordings on e.g. abuse occurring in church settings, youth interviews by bishops, dissenting votes against official nominees, women’s role, relations with other religions, improper use of church facilities or proper music and art in worship spaces. Also issues related to abortion, autopsies, birth control, cremation, dancing, dramas, divorce, euthanasia, firearms, funerals, homosexuality, hypnosis, lotteries, organ donations and transplants, out-of-wedlock births, singles, sterilization or stillborn children,

If writers want to pursue Handbook evolution in depth, they should note that columnist Riess ([email protected]) has the secret editions going back to the first one in 1899.

(The Religion Guy has long been concerned about “Secrecy in the Church,” the title of his 1974 book on that subject, and helped the Religion Newswriters Association negotiate the U.S. Catholic bishops’ landmark 1971 decision to open meetings to reporters.)

Ppoint of personal privilege: Let us now dance upon the grave of Daniel arap Moi, Kenya’s dictator 1978-2002.

We do this in honor of Odhiambo Okite, a Christianity Today news intern, then newspaper editor in Nairobi who headed the daily at the World Council of Churches assembly there. Later, as leader of Kenya’s government-controlled media. he allowed a mildly critical TV news item. Moi’s goons tossed him into an abusive prison where he went blind from mistreatment of diabetes.

This talented colleague should have been the A.M. Rosenthal or Lester Crystal of East Africa. Instead, he died in 2006 in exile in Wausau, Wisconsin.

Go to the article

0 notes

spokanefavs · 5 years ago

Link

NEW YORK (AP) — The National Prayer Breakfast - a Washington tradition since 1953 - is by custom a respite from partisan bickering. President Donald Trump shattered that tradition Thursday with aggressive remarks that buoyed his allies but dismayed a wide spectrum of faith leaders.

“A bipartisan prayer breakfast is the last place one would expect to find political attacks on opponents,” said the Rev. Tom Lambrecht, general manager of the conservative United Methodist magazine Good News. “Our country would benefit from a return to the kind of civility and grace reflected in Jesus’ words.”

Trump set the tone for his remarks even before speaking - holding up two newspapers with the headline “ACQUITTED” to herald the Senate’s vote Wednesday against removing him from office.

In a keynote address before Trump’s speech, Arthur Brooks, a Harvard professor and president of a conservative think tank, had decried a “crisis of contempt and polarization” and urged his listeners to ”love your enemies.”

“I don’t know if I agree with you,” said Trump. He then took a swipe at Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who had cited his faith in becoming the only Republican to vote for Trump’s removal.

“I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong,” Trump said.

“Nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you’ when you know that is not so,” Trump added, in a reference to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has offered that message even as she led the impeachment effort.

Pelosi, a practicing Catholic, reiterated that she often prays for Trump.

“I pray hard for him because he’s so off the track of our constitution, our values, our country,” she said after the breakfast. “He really needs our prayers.”

One of Trump’s leading allies in the conservative Christian evangelical community, the Rev. Robert Jeffress of the Southern Baptist megachurch First Baptist Dallas, embraced the president’s remarks.

“I think the president was completely right in what he said,” Jeffress said. “It’s not politically correct, but he didn’t get to be president by being politically correct.”

Jeffress, who said he dined with Trump and Prayer Breakfast organizers at the White House on Wednesday, said the criticism of Pelosi was justified.

“When you have been under nonstop attack for the last three years from people who want to destroy you and your family, it’s a little hard to hear them say, ‘I want to pray for you,’ ” he said. “It’s hypocritical.”

As for Romney, Jeffress contended that the senator’s decision to vote for Trump’s removal “seems more based on self-promotion than religious beliefs.”

Among Romney’s fellow Mormons in Utah, views were mixed.

“I don’t like that he’s the only member of the U.S. Senate on the Republican side who says, ‘I’m a man of God’ so he has to vote a certain way,” said former GOP legislator Mike Noel.

However, Emma Petty Addams, executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, said Romney “really exemplifies the way faith can be used in the public sphere in a very positive way.”

The Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, took note of Trump’s assertion that faith should not be used as a justification for doing what someone knows is wrong.

“Apply this logic to Trump’s white evangelical supporters: they are willing to trade off and even sell out Jesus for the reward of getting judges they like in the Supreme Court,” Wallis said via email. “Jesus taught us to welcome immigrants, to reject the use of racial bigotry, to avoid lying and to respect and love all people as they are made in the image of God.”

Professor Robert Franklin, who teaches moral theology at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, also evoked Jesus.

“If the president is feeling persecuted, he would be well served to spend quality time with his pastor while studying what Jesus did when he was persecuted,” Franklin suggested. “The religion of Jesus promotes the virtues of humility, self-accountability, forgiveness and reconciliation.”

A Conservative Jewish rabbi in Encino, California, Noah Farkas of the Valley Beth Shalom congregation, asserted that both Romney and Pelosi “are moved by their respective faith traditions.”

“I find it deeply problematic that the president uses the National Prayer Breakfast to lambaste the faith of his opponents,” Farkas said. ”He forgets the history of faith in this country, and disrespects others who speak from their sense of faithful conscience.”

At Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia - where Trump ally Jerry Falwell Jr. is president - English professor Karen Swallow Prior said Trump’s breakfast remarks prompted her to reflect on how religious faith can be politicized.

“The problem with such statements is not Trump himself, but rather they reveal how American Christianity has become a kind of currency whose value depends on whose possession it’s in,” she wrote via email.

Toward the end of his remarks, Trump conceded that these issues of faith are not simple.

“I’m sorry. I apologize. I’m trying to learn. It’s not easy,” he said. “When they impeach you for nothing and then you’re supposed to like them, it’s not easy folks. I do my best.”

#prayer #donald trump #National Prayer Breakfast #interfaith #Christianity #Christian #mitt romney #faith #American Christianity

0 notes

plusorminuscongress · 5 years ago

Text

New story in Politics from Time: ‘Deeply Problematic.’ Faith Leaders Express Concern Over Trump’s Political Attacks at National Prayer Breakfast

(NEW YORK) — The National Prayer Breakfast – a Washington tradition since 1953 – is by custom a respite from partisan bickering. President Donald Trump shattered that tradition Thursday with aggressive remarks that buoyed his allies but dismayed a wide spectrum of faith leaders.

Trump set the tone for his remarks even before speaking – holding up two newspapers with the headline “ACQUITTED” to herald the Senate’s vote Wednesday against removing him from office.

“I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong,” Trump said.

Pelosi, a practicing Catholic, reiterated that she often prays for Trump.

“I pray hard for him because he’s so off the track of our constitution, our values, our country,” she said after the breakfast. “He really needs our prayers.”

“I think the president was completely right in what he said,” Jeffress said. “It’s not politically correct, but he didn’t get to be president by being politically correct.”

Jeffress, who said he dined with Trump and Prayer Breakfast organizers at the White House on Wednesday, said the criticism of Pelosi was justified.

As for Romney, Jeffress contended that the senator’s decision to vote for Trump’s removal “seems more based on self-promotion than religious beliefs.”

Among Romney’s fellow Mormons in Utah, views were mixed.

“I don’t like that he’s the only member of the U.S. Senate on the Republican side who says, ‘I’m a man of God’ so he has to vote a certain way,” said former GOP legislator Mike Noel.

However, Emma Petty Addams, executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, said Romney “really exemplifies the way faith can be used in the public sphere in a very positive way.”

The Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, took note of Trump’s assertion that faith should not be used as a justification for doing what someone knows is wrong.

Professor Robert Franklin, who teaches moral theology at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, also evoked Jesus.

A Conservative Jewish rabbi in Encino, California, Noah Farkas of the Valley Beth Shalom congregation, asserted that both Romney and Pelosi “are moved by their respective faith traditions.”

At Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia – where Trump ally Jerry Falwell Jr. is president – English professor Karen Swallow Prior said Trump’s breakfast remarks prompted her to reflect on how religious faith can be politicized.

Toward the end of his remarks, Trump conceded that these issues of faith are not simple.

“I’m sorry. I apologize. I’m trying to learn. It’s not easy,” he said. “When they impeach you for nothing and then you’re supposed to like them, it’s not easy folks. I do my best.”

___

Associated Press reporter Lindsay Whitehurst contributed from Salt Lake City.

By David Crary / AP on February 06, 2020 at 04:43PM

#Time #politics #PlusOrMinusCongress #±Congress #Indega±#IndegaPlusOrMinus #TimeMag #TimeMagazine

0 notes

iprayunceasingly-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Holy See-China agreement draws criticism from US religious freedom advocates

New Post has been published on https://pray-unceasingly.com/catholic-living/catholic-news/holy-see-china-agreement-draws-criticism-from-us-religious-freedom-advocates/

Holy See-China agreement draws criticism from US religious freedom advocates

Washington D.C., Sep 30, 2018 / 03:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Holy See’s provisional agreement with China on the appointment of bishops has drawn criticism from some U.S. religious freedom leaders, who contend that it concedes too much to power to the government and undermines efforts to protect other suffering religious groups.

“I confess that I am skeptical, both as a Catholic, and as an advocate for the religious freedom of all religious communities in China,” Thomas Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute, said Sept. 27.

“Earlier this year the Vatican quite properly expressed grave concerns about China’s comprehensive anti-religion policy, and its apparent goal of altering Catholicism itself.”

Farr is a former American diplomat who was the first director of the U.S. State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom, from 1999-2003. He spoke before the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. His comments addressed the state of religious freedom in China, especially for Catholics; the potential for further action from Congress and American diplomacy; and the Vatican-China agreement.

On Sept. 22 the Holy See announced that Pope Francis had recognized seven illicitly ordained bishops after the signing of a provisional deal with the Chinese government over the nomination of bishops. Under the deal, the Chinese government can propose candidates as part of the nomination process, but the Pope must give final approval.

The Pope explained his decision in a Sept. 26 letter to China’s Catholics, acknowledging the “deep and painful tensions” centered especially on the figure of the bishop as “the guardian of the authenticity of the faith and as guarantor of ecclesial communion.” He said it was “essential” to deal first with the issue of bishop appointments in order to support the continuation of the Gospel in China and to re-establish “full and visible unity in the Church.”

He acknowledged the different reactions to the provisional agreement, both from those who are hopeful and from those who might feel abandoned by the Holy See and question “the value of their sufferings endured out of fidelity to the Successor of Peter.”

Farr, speaking to the congressional subcommittee, said he is concerned the provisional agreement “will not improve the lot of Catholics in China, much less the status of religious freedom for non-Catholic religious communities.” It risks harming religious freedom and “inadvertently encouraging China’s policy of altering the fundamental nature of Catholic witness.”

“In my humble opinion as a Catholic, and an advocate for religious freedom, the Vatican’s charism is to support that witness, as Pope Saint John Paul II did in Communist Poland,” he said.

Farr thought the process for choosing Catholic bishops was comparable to “the way parliamentary candidates are approved in Iran” where theologians vet prospective candidates for their loyalty to the government.

“Is it likely that the Chinese government would forward to the Vatican the name of a bishop faithful to the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church?” Farr asked. “It seems far more likely that the bishop would be chosen at a minimum for his acquiescence to the regime, if not his fidelity to its anti-Catholic purposes.”

Johnnie Moore, a religious freedom advocate who now serves on the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom, told CNA he entirely supports “direct engagement with governments which have a checkered past when it comes to religious freedom, working together to find a better future.”

However, he thought many people outside of the Catholic community are “entirely confused by the timing and why the Holy Father agreed to – for all intents and purposes – demote faithful, persevering priests who had endured so much for so long.”

Moore, a past vice-president of communications at the evangelical Christian, Virginia-based Liberty University, is now CEO of communications firm The Kairos Company.

“Surely, (Pope Francis) could have found a way to have a meaningful relationship with the Chinese-appointed bishops without picking sides between his flock and those who’ve viciously opposed it for so long,” he said. “I’m also afraid that clever leaders in China will use this deal with the Vatican to distract the world from their resurgent, egregious mistreatment of other religious communities.”

Farr’s remarks tried to place China-Vatican relations in a historical context. In the centuries that Catholics have been in China, beginning even before missionary priest Matteo Ricci’s founding of a Jesuit mission in 1601, they have encountered “the assertion that Catholicism is incompatible with Chinese culture and must either be rooted out or adapted in ways that would change its fundamental nature.”

While Christianity became associated with European imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, against which many Chinese rebelled, it also suffered intense persecution after the Cultural Revolution after communist forces took power in 1949 under Mao Zedong.

China’s government attempted to absorb or destroy all religion. It expelled the papal representative to China and over a decade’s time engaged in “brutal treatment” of Catholics, Protestants and other religious groups, Farr said. This intensified under the Cultural Revolution begun in the 1960s.

“Priests and nuns were tortured, murdered (some were burned alive), and imprisoned in labor camps. Lay Christians were paraded in their towns and villages with cylindrical hats detailing their ‘crimes’,” he said. Catholic clergy and laity were among the tens of millions who died “terrible deaths.”

“While Mao proved that a policy of eliminating religion is unrealistic, his successors have constantly experimented in finding the ‘correct’ way to control, co-opt, and absorb religion into the communist state,” Farr continued. Since the 1970s, China’s religious policies have had “ups and downs as new Chinese leaders adapted policies to achieve the objective of control.”

“Not all Chinese policy involves overt repression of religion,” he said. In recent decades, China’s leaders have at times supported “religious groups perceived to be capable of consolidating Beijing’s absolute power.” According to Farr, this has sometimes meant praise for non-Tibetan Chinese Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism as China’s “traditional cultures.”

“Clearly those three groups pose a lesser threat to Communist rule than do the Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and Christians,” he said. “For the moment at least, it is the latter three religious communities that are the objects of continuing repression, especially the Uighurs.”

Citing State Department estimates of 70 million to 90 million Christians in China, with about 12 million Catholic, he said the growth of Chinese Christianity, especially through conversions to Protestant denominations, is “of great concern to the Chinese.”

Moving the State Administration for Religious Affairs to the United Front Work Department, which historically has been tasked with controlling China’s ethnic minorities, ensures “increased monitoring and control over the perceived threat posed by religion’s growth in China.”

Moore, a commissioner on the U.S. international religious freedom commission, had voiced astonishment that the Vatican would normalize its relationship with China “within one week of China so brazenly closing Beijing’s large Zion Church and just a few weeks after the United Nations, the New York Times and the U.S. State Department all revealed that China has forcibly placed as many as one million Muslims in re-education camps.”

“Honestly, I was in total disbelief. I said to myself, ‘not this, not now’ and then, I just prayed,” he continued.

Following a two-day review of China’s record in August, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has said that up to 1 million Uyghurs may be held against their will and without trial in extra-legal detention, on pretext of countering terrorism and religious extremism.

Farr voiced fear that the agreement reflects a “failed Cold War ‘realpolitik’ diplomacy” of the 1960s Vatican that was changed by St. John Paul II, a failure he blamed on a lack of realism about “the evil of communism.”

“It harmed the Church in parts of Eastern Europe,” he said. “The post-war Vatican was not then, and is not now, a secular power capable of changing the behavior of communist governments by dint of its political diplomacy.”

He contended that the Vatican is “the only authority in the world constituted precisely to address the root causes of totalitarian evil,” citing ST. John Paul II’s cooperation in the 1980s with U.S. President Ronald Reagan and U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

“The Holy See’s role should be now, as it was then, to press for human rights and, especially, for religious freedom for all religious communities in China,” he said, arguing that the Vatican’s charism is not diplomacy, but “witness to the truth about God and man.”

“As for China’s Catholics, the Vatican should demand nothing less than libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the Church to witness to its adherents, to the public, and to the regime its teachings on human dignity and the common good.”

Farr suggested to Congress that the U.S. government should make the case to China that the growth of religion and religious communities is natural and inevitable in all societies. Efforts to kill it or blunt its growth are “impractical and self-defeating,” and persecution only slows economic development and increases social instability and violent extremism. Accommodating religious groups, by contrast, will help economic growth, social harmony, and stability.

China is a major force in the world and has enormous influence on global affairs and American interests, he said. U.S. policymakers do not typically address religious freedom in this context. “Far more than a humanitarian issue, the way China handles its internal religious matters is of sufficient importance that the United States should make religious liberty a central element of its relationship with the East Asian nation,” he said.

The agreement between the Holy See and mainland China has met with varied reactions within China.

Bishop Stephen Lee Bun-sang of Macau wrote Sept. 24 that he was pleased to have learned of the agreement: “I thoroughly reckon that both parties have worked towards this provisional agreement after a long period of time with persistent effort of research and dialogue. This agreement is a positive move especially in favour of the communion of the Catholic Church in Chin and the Universal Church.”

Bishop Lee encouraged the faithful “to pray for the progress in Sino-Vatican relationship, with the hope that this provisional agreement may really be implemented, so as to contribute to and benefit the Chinese society and the Church's charitable, pastoral, social, and educational apostolates, striving to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ far and wide.”

But Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, who has long been an opponent of rapprochement with the Chinese government, told Reuters just days before the agreement was reached that “they're giving the flock into the mouths of the wolves. It's an incredible betrayal.”

The Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong said the consequences of the deal “will be tragic and long lasting, not only for the Church in China but for the whole Church because it damages the credibility.”

Mary Rezac contributed to this report.

CNA Daily News

#advocates #agreement #criticism #draws #freedom #from #Holy #Religious #SeeChina #Catholic News

0 notes