« How Abortion Dies | Main | Uh-Oh. »
April 25, 2006
Mark Twain And The Book Of Mormon
(Michelle Arnold)
During a trip out West, Mark Twain took along The Book of Mormon to while away the travel hours. He didn't think much of its literary style, but he did find it useful as a cure for insomnia:
"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so 'slow,' so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle -- keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.
"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern -- which was about every sentence or two -- he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."
(Note: This link does not constitute an endorsement of the host site. Refer to JA.org's Rules 6 and 7. Nod to Once Upon a Time... for the link.)
If you're interested in reading the book in which the excerpted essay is found, CLICK HERE.
For more about Mark Twain, CLICK HERE. I especially liked the following quote attributed by Wikipedia to Twain:
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Mormonism | Permalink
Comments
Mark Twain was quite the wit. You definitely have to give him that. If Joseph Smith wrote as entertainingly as Twain, we'd all be living in Utah.
(No. Not really. Still, reading the above grafs, I'm glad that God made Smith boring and Twain witty.)
Posted by: Steven D. Greydanus | Apr 25, 2006 6:26:41 AM
I read the Book of Mormon once, and though I have never said this openly to a Mormon, I laughed until I nearly cried.
It sounded to me like someone had swallowed a King James bible, got sick, and the BOM was the best they could make out of the pieces.
For all the reasons Twain mentioned in his last paragraph, I found it roaringly funny.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 25, 2006 6:38:49 AM
When I first heard the story, esp. about the tablets being written in "Reformed Egyptian" and seen on translated with rock in a man's hat, I thought--i'm not kidding--I thought, "That sounds like a yarn Mark Twain would make up."
Posted by: Ed Peters | Apr 25, 2006 7:40:14 AM
I once read a very funny Mark Twain essay on "The Last of the Mohicans." He was particularly skilled at pointing out the miracles that must have happened for the story to have actually occurred.
Posted by: Peggy | Apr 25, 2006 8:06:07 AM
Not to sound like I have no sense of humor, but is this post a good idea? Making fun of a religion and all? How are we to object to people making fun of Catholicicm when in the same breath we are cracking jokes about the Book of Mormon?
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 25, 2006 8:35:12 AM
People make fun of Catholicism all the time. And the funniest are those who are Catholic!
Posted by: Patricia | Apr 25, 2006 9:00:52 AM
If you really want a good laugh, read The Book of Zelph: Another Testament to the Book of Mormon. http://www.bookofzelph.com/
Posted by: Arieh O. | Apr 25, 2006 9:16:24 AM
People make fun of Catholicism all the time. And the funniest are those who are Catholic!
I don't mean good spirited jokes about Catholicism. I mean insulting jokes or comments that make your religion look ridiculous, told by those who realy think your religion is ridiculous. Do you think any Mormons would laugh at what is being said about the book they believe to be sacred?
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 25, 2006 9:26:40 AM
J.R., you are right that making fun of someone's religion is not to be done lightly, which is why I have kept my thoughts about the Book of Mormon to myself for such a long time.
But, people do slam Catholicism (not to mention Christianity as a whole) all the time, and if anyone is going to defend his/her faith then they have to laern to take their lumps along with everyone else.
It may be useful to some Mormons to know how the Book of Mormon is perceived by those outside their faith. Based on style alone, I personally can't believe this is an inspired book.
To be fair, I found it more entertaining than the Q'uran, which to me lacked any interior, organizing principle. It's just... there. If you believe it is God's word you will obey, I suppose, but there is really nothing presented in a systematic way that one could sink one's teeth into. Very arbitrary. Almost as if it were put together out of bits of other religions, along with the idiosyncratic whims of the author.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 25, 2006 9:27:02 AM
Let me add, now that I have ventured to irritate Mormons everywhere, that I think it is sensitivity to Mormon feelings that has kept many other Christians from voicing their opinions regarding Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
The Mormons I have known are good folks, and I wouldn't poke them just to watch them squirm for anything.
But the foundations of their religion are of tremendous importance in any real discussion, which means addressing the BOM as well as it's author, Joseph Smith.
The Book of Mormon sounds funny because Joseph Smith was a right old fraud (and not an especially bright one) who made it up on the fly. It sounds like a fake Bible because it is. Those are the most salient facts of Mormonism. If they are off limits, then a real debate on the Mormon faith can not be had.
The Book of Mormon (and every other rabbit that Smith pulled out of his hat) was a poor joke on those who believed it.
I don't think Joesph Smith is now in a place where he can laugh, though.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 25, 2006 9:47:20 AM
Tim - have you painted any portraits of Mohammed lately?
Posted by: Steve | Apr 25, 2006 9:47:26 AM
Steve-
"Tim - have you painted any portraits of Mohammed lately?"
Nothing of any importance... only a few cartoons.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 25, 2006 10:07:58 AM
TJ: exactly right. the book is funny cuz it's a smattering of odd phrases linked into something approximating sentences. i was WAITING for somebody to draw the shallow conclusion that we/i were making fun of mormonism. it's not my/our fault that millions believe it. it's still a silly story.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Apr 25, 2006 10:19:08 AM
Joseph was just a bad writer. In the hands of someone like Quentin Tarantino, it could've been a classic. Check out "Book of Mormon Stories by Quentin Tarantino"
http://adversary.awardspace.com/bookofmormonstories/
Posted by: Jules | Apr 25, 2006 10:47:21 AM
Ed Peters,
Personally, I would not call objecting to a disrespectful attitude shallow. I do not see how this can help either interreligious dialogue or evangelization.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 25, 2006 11:05:50 AM
Mr Stoodley,
Error does not deserve respect. It is a duty to truth to look at reality as it is, and not hide the truth for fear of offense. Clearly, would I give Mark Twain's account of Mormons to a Mormon? Probably not. But that's a prudential call. To say that our view of reality has to be limited by prudence, that is a serious error.
Now if you view this blog as equivalent as a letter to Mormons, you might have a point. Pointing out the absurd truth might not be the most effective means of reaching everyone. But this is not primarily a forum for being irenical. It's about apologetics, and part of that is knowing the truth about others. Is your objection that Mark Twain is inaccurate, or just that the truth is inconvenient for you?
Posted by: Breier | Apr 25, 2006 11:43:44 AM
Showing error as error, unveiling the mask of a false religion, demonstrating its falsity so that others will not be led astray, all those serve the cause of evangelization, and the preservation of faith. And clearly humor is a much gentler means of that than a furious polemic.
As for remarks about Catholics, we take offense because Catholicism is the true faith, and we object to error. The objection is not based on our feelings being hurt; because if we're in error perhaps our feelings should be hurt and our consciences pricked. We object because the joker, objectively, is commiting a sin against truth. Unless you be a relativist, you must allow inviduals to lead their lives by the objective truth as it exists. That means a real distinction between error and truth, and the respect due to each.
Posted by: Breier | Apr 25, 2006 11:49:07 AM
Dialogue I came across on a Catholic board on AOL a few years back, paraphrased slightly:
Poster A: "[Re: The Koran] At least it's not as hard to read as the Book of Mormon. I read that in penance for my sins."
Poster B: "What are you, a mass murderer?"
.
.
.
Well, I found it amusing. :-)
Posted by: Matthew L. Martin | Apr 25, 2006 12:53:40 PM
I'm LDS and I started reading this blog after I discovered it last year because I was friends with Jimmy way back in high school (back when he was Jimmy the first time). For the most part, I've really enjoyed the blog, and learning some of the points of Catholicism that I never knew, but I've noticed for the past several months a distinct antagonistic spirit against Mormons in particular. I don't mind light jokes about religion nor about my religion in particular, but the mean-spiritedness which has been directed towards my faith here has just about hit the point where I will not longer continue reading the blog.
The Book of Mormon is not about literary style, it's not trying to dazzle the reader with its prose. Its purpose is to testify of the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ, the same one who atoned for our sins and died on the cross and rose again. If the book isn't artsy enough or literary enough for the intelligentsia out there--well, it's not supposed to be.
Of course I'm aware of Twain's opinion of the BoM; he is a literary figure and would read it as a literary exercise. I'm not particularly offended by his opinion.
Tim, are you saying that because other people slam Catholicism, it's ok for y'all to slam Mormonism? Interesting viewpoint... I wouldn't have expected it of you.
Posted by: Wendy | Apr 25, 2006 1:09:36 PM
Good grief. If you don't want to be offensive, then don't discuss anything by Twain. Period. There's something in his writings to offend or to disturb people of every faith. I love him, but I have to admit that "The Mysterious Stranger" creeped me out with its nihilism when I was a kid and I don't know if I'll ever re-read it.
That said, Twain loved to point out the oddity of different culture. And he was spot-on. (I giggle to think about what he must have thought of the Mormon's special underwear - although even he was polite enough not to mention such things in his writing).
Posted by: MissJean | Apr 25, 2006 1:25:44 PM
Its purpose is to testify of the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ, the same one who atoned for our sins and died on the cross and rose again.
Ummm....no. The imaginary "Jesus" of the BOM is no more the Jesus of the New Testament than Allah is the Triune God. Entirely different concept using the same name. Until we understand that, there is no real dialogue possible.
Posted by: mr | Apr 25, 2006 1:31:27 PM
It should be pointed out that Twain pretty thoroughly excoriated the Catholic Church in "Innocents Abroad," where, among other things, he accused the church of putting the Virgin Mary ahead of the Trinity, and of perpetuating a massive fraud in terms of the relics on display in churches.
Posted by: WRY | Apr 25, 2006 1:36:53 PM
My comment: "Twain's antipathy toward the Book of Mormon is famous, but if you haven’t read what he said about it, go have a look. It’ll probably offend you if you’re LDS, humor you if you’re not, or make you wince if you’re trying to reach out to LDS and have Mark Twain 'on your side.'"
Posted by: Brad Haas | Apr 25, 2006 1:39:53 PM
JRS: my atttitude (toward the book of mormon) is not disrepectful. you have learn to tell the difference.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Apr 25, 2006 1:44:40 PM
The Holy Spirit inspired a very few people to write NT Scriptures in the First Century. Other folks have been appointing themselves to write pseudo-scriptures since the Second Century. We call the oldest ones Gnostics. So Jos. Smith is just one more in a long line of self-appointed Scripture writers. Yes, a lot of people beleived in Gnostic gospels, and a lot of people believe in Jos. Smith's testament. I am sorry for them. But the fact that people beleiee in a document does NOT make the document worthy of belief, or "respect".
A lot of people once beleived in Thor's sacred oak tree. About 725, St. Boniface cut it down and made a church out of it. Doubtless today he'd be accused of disrespecting other people.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Apr 25, 2006 2:04:07 PM
"A lot of people once beleived in Thor's sacred oak tree. About 725, St. Boniface cut it down and made a church out of it."
I think St Boniface needed to go through sensitivity training :)
Posted by: Arieh O. | Apr 25, 2006 2:33:53 PM
When does a judgement become a slam? If I make a judgement that the BOM is silly or a fraud, I’m entitled to it. In defending that judgement I would try to present evidence in a logical manner that would convince someone of the reasonableness of my opinion. I think I might be able to do that in a respectful manner. Ideally, a devout LDS believer would not take offense at my line of reasoning even though he or she might strongly object to the thrust of my argument: that their sacred scripture is silly or fraudulent. It all depends on the tone.
What about truth? Error does not deserve respect. Ok. Perhaps people deserve respect. So we speak the truth in love and we try to speak it lovingly. I’ll give you an example from my life. Some one at the office made a tasteless joke about the Virgin Mary. I objected because it’s an offense against the truth. I objected because its an offense against Mary, a real person with real feelings. That part is easy. I can object in a gentle and humble manner because my concern here is for the other person who only hurts himself in offending the truth and perhaps grieves Mary and all those who love her. The difficult part for me was the hurt I felt which has nothing to do with truth per se. It’s hard for me not to take it personally when someone makes fun of my Mother. Maybe it’s growing up in the Bronx where ranking on a guy’s mom is the ultimate insult. Maybe I need to grow up a little and re-evaluate my relationship with our Mother. After all, it’s not about me. My point, though, is that I really hurt when someone slams her. Responding to my co-worker with charity was quite an effort. Now if one of my other friends wants to dispute the biblical basis for the perpetual virginity, we can argue all day without a problem. It’s friendly, respectful and not personal. It all depends on the tone.
So, if an LDS believer is attached to the BOM shouldn’t I show consideration? Shouldn’t I be careful in my use of humor? Does rejecting relativism require abandoning sensitivity? If I were a guest in the home of an LDS believer, would I say all the things that have been said here today? Whether we are directly addressing LDS believers or not, they are some out there listening in. One has already found what we say to be mean spirited. What’s our tone?
Posted by: | Apr 25, 2006 2:41:49 PM
anon: St. Ignatius of Loyola debated slaying a Moor for insulting Our Lady, and let God decide by inspiring the guy to take the left fork in the road, and live, rather than the right, and be stabbed by Ignacio.
Note to file: we're not in a Mormon's living room here. My tone is one of levity toward a book that is a joke, and impatience toward those who can't distinguish between a an attitude toward a book and that toward people who belevie in that book.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Apr 25, 2006 3:24:46 PM
Not to sound like I have no sense of humor, but is this post a good idea? Making fun of a religion and all?
I seem to recall the prophet Elijah making fun of Baal worship (1 Kings 18:27).
Posted by: Seamus | Apr 25, 2006 4:42:08 PM
Wendy, you're absolutely right that the prose of the BoM is not in and of itself important. God chose many different styles of prose for the Old and New Testament. However, one's prose can be indicative of motive. Since the BoM is claimed to be translated from symbols and markings that would not have a "prose" to them, the choice of prose would be a combination of Joseph Smith's and God's, assuming he had a hand in its translation. There is nothing contrary to the Mormon faith in that statement.
I've read the first couple books of the BoM and had the exact same impression as Twaim, Tim J. and Ed P.. It sounds like someone is trying to sound impressive but doesn't pull it off very well.
I had to ask myself when reading it: why, if it was true, would Joseph Smith feel the need to try and make it sound impressive with Old Testament sounding prose? Why not just write in his native style? What was the motivation for that? If it was God who gave that motivation to Joseph Smith, why did He do it?
My conclusion was that the odd combination of lofty and obscure prose was indicative of a fraudulent attempt to make it sound more impressive than it was.
Posted by: Ken Crawford | Apr 25, 2006 5:44:13 PM
Ed Peters,
I have nothing against Ken Crawford's approach to the issue. Your attitude, however, is extremely disrespecful, not just to the book but to the people who believe in it, and if you chose to debate that it does not change the fact. I do not know what you are thinking when you write what you do, but what you write is disrespectful.
Destroying pagan idols or sacred trees is a different matter, proving the impotency of the pagan gods. This is a matter of childish making fun of the Book of Mormon.
I am no supporter of always being P.C. or sensitivity training telling people not to preach the truth. The truth needs to be preached, and the literary style of the Book of Mormon is a legitimate topic for discussion and criticism.
Charity, however, can never be disregarded. You must never separate truth, beauty, and goodness. It seems to me that many people here think that because someone is wrong, we no longer need to be charitable to them, except maybe as a practical thing to do if there is a chance of converting them or something. This attitude I think is one of the most common but heinous distortions of religion. "It is charitable to admonish the sinner" you may say. Indeed, it can be charitable to do that, but you must examine your own heart as you do so, and the impression your words will give. Most of the statments here show a distinctive lack of charity.
Would you say these things if you were fully aware of the loving presence and mercy of Christ surrounding you and hopefully within your soul?
So LDSs do not need to be present for there to be a moral obligation to be respectful and charitable to them. But even if that were not the case, the fact remains that we are not in someone's living room. We are posting this in a public forum where LDSs will and indeed have read them.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 26, 2006 12:05:44 AM
J.R.: Two words ... "magic ... glasses."
Funny as this is (and, I mean, come on, what's NOT hilarious about magic glasses?) it points out the difference between poking fun at the BoM and ridiculing the Bible and other Church documents and beliefs. For one, the "seeing stones," along with the golden tablets that Smith says were provided for him, are nowhere to be found. The Church can at least provide manuscripts (written by MEN under inspiration from God) for historians, etc. to study.
But Smith's magic glasses? Gone. Come on. God gave you magic glasses ... and you lost them?
What I'm saying is, if we can't laugh at that, what can we laugh at?
Posted by: Jared | Apr 26, 2006 3:05:07 AM
Jared--and my correctness in saying that some people insist on seeing what they want to see-- spares JRS most of my response. I will only observe that the last refuge of some in disagreements is to the plumb the depths of their opponent's soul and opine that, how did he put it here? oh yes: "Would you say these things if you were fully aware of the loving presence and mercy of Christ surrounding you and hopefully within your soul?" yadda yadda yadda. Debate the issue, not the man. I am reminded of the alternatvie ending to the story where the little boy said 'This emperor has no cloths'. His mom spanked him and said, "How dare you say disrespectful things about the Emperor, in public even."
Posted by: Ed Peters | Apr 26, 2006 5:44:38 AM
Personally, I find the Mormon doctrine of God living in his little retirement planet with his wife somewhere out there in the universe as the most hilarious aspect of the religion. Mormon missionaries are awfully nice though. :)
And they don't issue fatwas.
Posted by: JonathanR. | Apr 26, 2006 7:46:06 AM
Wendy-
I wouldn't want to see my or Michelle's actions imputed to Jimmy, so I hope you will continue to read the blog.
I knew when I made my comments about the BoM that feelings would be hurt, and for this reason I almost chose not to. I'm a middle kid, an appeaser. I am almost allergic to confrontation.
But when I was given the BoM the first time, those who gave it to me were keenly interested in my reaction to it. They wanted me to read it in hopes I would convert, and challenged me to see if my heart didn't "burn in my bosom".
At the time I was too timid to give them my real opinion of the BoM, saying only that I really wasn't interested in converting, thanks anyway...
I kept my reaction to myself for twenty years. When I read Twain's assessment of the BoM, it seemd a ripe opportunity to finally say what I had been thinking all those years.
It was not my purpose to hurt feelings, but I can't really conceive of any NICE way to say that I think the founder of a person's religion was a fraud, or that I find their holy book silly.
I know that many people find elements of the Catholic faith ridiculous, and it does sting when they say so, but I just try to respond to the merits of each objection as it comes. There have been a number of people on this blog (even some so-called Catholics) who have openly mocked just about every aspect of the Catholic faith. In a public forum like this, one just learns to deal with it and try not to take it personally.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 26, 2006 7:52:42 AM
The fact of the matter is that this is a blog dedicated to Catholicism, with all of the prejudices and viewpoints involved with it. A reader of a different faith shouldn't come here and expect that every faith outside of Catholicism is going to be treated with the same respect and reverence that the authors here give to Catholicism.
I have seen other faiths on here slammed before, including my own Seventh-Day Adventist faith. Do I get upset about it? No... not really. I understand that the authors of JimmyAkin.org come from a different point of view. I expect that. I can disagree and point out my own views if I wish, but I don't expect JO.org to change or censor itself because I feel differently. I am not the target audience of this blog.
I am sure that the authors of JO.org would find humor in the background of my church too, esp. Miller and his 1843/1844 apocalyptic predictions. Heck... even *I* find humor in it.
I would question just how deep someone's faith is if they can't take a little bit of humor directed at what they believe.
April
April
Posted by: April | Apr 26, 2006 9:50:59 AM
Ed,
My initial comments were not directed at you specifically, I merely wanted to bring attention to the issue of whether it was a good idea to make fun of a religion. No matter how ridiculous the BoM is or how much you want to say you respect the people and not the book, the fact remains that by making fun of the book you are making fun of the people who believe in it. I personally do not see this as a valid or wise exercize, even if you have noble goals.
I do not intend to "plumb the depths" of your soul, or Breier's, or anyone else. I can only judge by the words I read, but I think it valid to bring up the point that some things seem hard to believe would be said by someone in a deep union with God. That is not to say I am neccessarily further advanced in the spiritual life than you, but I think the point is valid. And that IS the issue I want to bring up, I don't bring it up in some sort of effort to win an argument about making fun of religious books.
But to respond to the issue of Christ's love and mercy with "yada yada yada"? What more can I say?
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 26, 2006 10:09:07 AM
JR, well, you could say "I misread most of your points and I withdraw my comments."
Posted by: Ed Peters | Apr 26, 2006 10:54:44 AM
What did I misread???
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 26, 2006 10:58:22 AM
A friend of Mr. Stoodley, but more a friend of truth.
Mr. Stoodley I ask again, is there some inaccuracy that was stated, or is the truth simply inconvenient for you?
According to Mr. Stoodley, error must never be critized, nor falsehood approached with humor. For to do so is to be uncharitable to the errant and the false.
If someone position can't be approached with humor, a fortiori, it can't be vigorously critized, which is certainly harsher.
Therefore all you pro-lifers who say abortion is murder; how uncharitable you're being to the feelings of those who are pro-choice! How much better to speak more sedately, more irenically...
But look at the statements of the saints. If anything, there remarks are *more* politically uncorrect and scatching, because they're aware of spiritual realities in a much keener way than we are.
Mr. Stoodley, if we're looking at things through the perspective of deep spiritual union, then saving faith and infidelity are seen in much sharper relief. Accordingly, Mormonism is a demonic, false, and man-made religion that leads its practioners away from Jesus, the Holy Trinity, and eternal salvation. It is, strictly speaking, evil. It denies the savings mysteries of faith, and its holy books are humorous, but also blasphemous. I testify that the teachings of the faith teachings of the Mormon Church are a broad way that leads to damnation, and not the narrow way that leads to salvation.
We have lost a healthy hatred of heresy. For indeed, heresy is not be respected, but despised. It is also a sin, and unbelief keeps people away from the salvation brought to us by Jesus Christ.
Do that mean you say that to people who don't share your beliefs? Obviously not, discussions have to be based on shared premises. You can't argue from faith to someone who doesn't share your faith. But the truth remains. You seem to object to the truth coming out, and would prefer that it remain hidden.
If Mark Twain was lying or inaccurate, and we were using falsehood to make fun of someone, that would be objectionable. But his remarks are humorous precisely because they're true and accurate.
Similarly, Mormons believe that all Christians are in error, the Great Apostasty, etc. Does that hurt my feelings? No. If I accepted their principles as true I'd have to claim Catholicism was false as well. But they're principles are false, and we are perfectly entitled to examine their faith from the perspective of reason.
This I do testify.
Posted by: Breier | Apr 26, 2006 11:14:32 AM
So in other words, we are apparently forbidden by charity from laughing at evils in the world, we are only allowed to cry at them.
Strange, I always thought humor was gentler.
Posted by: | Apr 26, 2006 11:21:00 AM
JR,
The fact remains that by calling abortion murder you are calling the people who have had abortions murderers. I personally do not see this as a wise and valid exercise, even if you have noble goals.
The fact remains that by saying belief in Jesus is necessary for eternal life, you calling people who don't believe in Jesus hell-bound. I personally do not see this as a wise and valid exercise, even if you have noble goals.
The fact remains that by calling a viewpoint uncharitable you are calling the people who voiced it uncharitable, and plumbing their souls. I personally do not see this as a wise and valid exercise, even if you have noble goals.
Are we seeing a trend? The theme seems to be that saying the truth is tough, because it offends people who don't have it.
Well if that's the case, how about talking about *any* moral issue? No quicker way to offend than to implicate someone as behaving immorally.
But isn't it true that there is a clear distinction between objective content of a faith, and someone's subjective reason for believing in it?
While it may be a corollary that an absurd belief system makes the person who holds it a believer in absurdity, that is true in one sense, but not in another.
Just because the Book of Mormon is risible doesn't mean that a particular Mormon's reason for his belief is risible. His reason for belief isn't necessarily based on what's being made fun of. It may be, but isn't necessarily.
For example, I'd wager that many Mormons have their beliefs because of what they're parents taught them, reinforced by continual testimonials at their worship services, being told that any doubt against their faith is demonic, etc. Other may not be that interested in religion, and are more or less conservatives, simply taking what was given to them. Others may be convinced by apologetical arguments from FARMS or some other source.
There are many complicated reasons why someone believes what they do. The reason may have nothing to do with an objective literary analysis of the BOM, in fact I rather doubt it does. Consequently, while people may be offended at having their Holy Book criticized, I don't see how criticism of it can be characterized as an insult.
There seems to be this premise that "making fun" of something is wrong. Where did that come from? There are many legitimate purposes for laughing at error. For one, it shows the absuridity of error and makes us more likely to adhere to truth. Also, we often laugh so that we don't grow angry, or despondent. I laugh at many abuses in the Church, because if I pondered them without that humour I might grow enraged. Is that uncharitable? Hardly, it's an instrument of charity.
There seems to be a pseduo-scrupulous vein here, that sees laughter as a sin. But hard-hitting apologetical criticism, being academic, is OK? What's going on?
Posted by: BWS | Apr 26, 2006 11:39:23 AM
Breier,
Now it is my turn to say someone has misread my comments. If you read what I have written, you will see that I have no problem with uncovering falsehood, fighting heresy, defending the truth.
Abortion is indeed murder.
Inasmuch as it is false, Mormonism is evil and of the devil. So is Protestantism, cafeteria Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheistic Materialism, and so on.
All these religions also contain more or less truth and goodness. Inasmuch as they are true and good, they are of God.
But we can not only focus on the issue of truth and reason. We need to focus on love and the will. There seems to be, judging simply from the words written, the attitude here that all this sentimental love stuff can be set aside to get at the heart of the matter: doctrinal truth. No one thinks that consciously, but it is a common attitude nonetheless.
Or more specifically it may be the attitude that because someone or something is false I can ignor the virtue of charity. It's error right? Well, yes, it is error and evil, and it can be good to point that out. But never outside the context of love for the people involved.
So indeed weep over Mormonism, and argue against it. Point out how the style discredits the book. Even quote Mark Twain if you judge it prudent. But do not make uncharitable comments. Do not make light of the matter, as if humor was "gentler" than serious discussion or grief. I don't mind when Protestants say "those poor Catholics aren't saved. Lets go save them!" They are misguided but acting out of love. What I do not like is if they say "did you hear what that Pope Benedict said yesterday...isn't that HIL-AR-I-OUS!. Hey, I'm not being disrespectful, it's not my fault some people beleive this nonsense."
Granted we are right and they are wrong. That last example is just to show that, in my opinion at least, it is far preferable to respecfully argue against false beliefs of others (or cry about them) than to make fun of those heart-felt beliefs, and making fun of someone's "holy book" counts as making fun of their beliefs.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 26, 2006 11:44:11 AM
It is of course true that we must be charitable. Where JR's argument falls flat is that nothing uncharitable seems to have been said.
Saying that Mormonism is a joke is equivolent to saying that it is a false relgion.
Big deal! Mormons, who also believe in a True Church, believe that Catholicism is a false relgion.
Following a corollary of the truth is hardly uncharitable. If your objection is to tone, then you really have to consider the forum. A an orthodox Catholic blog is not going to have the ecumenical restraint you see in First Things.
The best argument I see for you is claiming that a blog is just as much a public forum as anywhere else, because of the high readership. An interesting question.
But that still begs the question of why casting discredit upon a religion is intrinsically wrong. If a relgion is false, it should be exposed as false. Irony is a legitimate tool of rhetoric.
Posted by: Breier | Apr 26, 2006 11:46:46 AM
I meant to write, if you read what I have written in other posts (or whatever, I'm not sure of this vocabulary) on this site you will see I have no problem uncovering falsehood, etc.
I attempted, with what success others will have to decide, to defend priestly celibacy, papal teaching, Magisterial authority, and other such topics.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 26, 2006 11:49:45 AM
JR,
Thanks for the last post, which cleared the air considerably. I have misread you, and apologize for doing so. As for charity, I quite agree with you. Making stupid slapstick mocking remarks is unworthy of any cause, in my view. It is a very low base form of rhetoric.
But "making fun" of a holy book is another matter. I don't see how this is per se uncharitable. Exposing something to ridicule in argument has a long tradition; it's the reductio ad absurdum.
Clearly, showing the absurdity of something and provoking laughter is primarily for the benefit of others, and not for the people who hold the absurd beliefs. They might get more angry. But rhetorical considerations are always a balancing test.
From my point of view, exposing something to laughter, like Twain, is a more sophisticated version of a plain didactic criticism, which is boring. It also has more emotional punch.
Now if the things pointed on were petty, fair enough. But I don't see where that took place. Perhaps the situation would be helped if you could provide an example of what exactly you found objectionable.
More basically, I don't see how laughing at error among friends is wrong, but rigorously refuting error is OK.
Posted by: Breier | Apr 26, 2006 11:55:14 AM
Perhaps I simply erred in expecting too much from people. I don't expect most of y'all to believe in the Book of Mormon; I mean, if you did, you'd be Mormon, duh! ;) Of course you believe it to be false doctrine. No hurt feelings there.
As a Mormon, I look upon Catholics and Catholicism with a great deal of respect. While I don't believe that JPII was infallible, I think he was a great and wonderful man who was responsible for the spiritual well-being of a huge number of good people. I believe that most of the popes, while not carrying the keys, were sincere and humble men who did their best to keep Christianity alive through some very dark and trying times. And I believe that most of today's priests, despite carrying a burden I believe is unnecessary, are blessed with wisdom and a goodly measure of God's spirit to help them lead their flocks on a righteous path.
I guess I just expected a little bit of that in return. I mean, I really don't expect y'all to believe that I'm right. I just didn't really understand that so many Catholics found my religion to be... well, just plain evil. I expected "misguided." I'm okay with "silly." "Evil" was simply more than I expected. I guess if John Paul II and Gordon B. Hinkley can meet and exchange pleasant words and ideas, and if large portions of the Catholic and LDS churches can work together in charitable and political issues, then there shouldn't be any reason to imply (correct me if I've infered incorrectly) that certain people were burning in hell.
Doctrinal differences aside, aren't we are counseled to live our lives in pretty much similar fashion? Aren't we all extremely pro-family? Don't we all believe in two-parent, male/female households that should stick together through thick and thin and shouldn't have sex out of wedlock? Aren't there enough hedonistic, self-centered people out there who are (probably unintentionally) trying to undermine God's plan for us and our society that we need to resort to sniping at one another? Aren't our liberties in real enough actual danger from Satan that there has to be finger-pointing among Christians (and yes, I know a number of you will say that I'm not actually a Christian; let's just agree to disagree on that one, k?)?
I do thank those among you who, while not believing in my religion, are willing to respect my beliefs the same as I respect yours.
Slightly off-topic side question: I'm pretty sure I understand why so many Protestants (and Catholics, apparently) believe Mormons aren't Christian, but I've never understood why they don't believe Catholics aren't. Can anyone clear this up for me, or is there a specific post you can refer me to?
Thanks, and what a really interesting discussion! I may have to comment more often. ;)
Posted by: Wendy | Apr 26, 2006 1:33:57 PM
"Doctrinal differences aside..."
Wendy- you hit the nail on the head. We don't put doctrinal differences aside, when assessing the veracity of a religious claim. You say that doctrine aside, we live our lives the same way. Well, we don't contracept, or condone abortion under ANY circumstances. That's a big deal to us, and it is an example of our doctrine informing our lives...
That said...Mormomism isn't evil, in the spooky movie sense of evil. But, if you think of evil as a privation, a lack, rather than a presence of something sinister, well, we do see a lack of completeness, of fullness, in the LDS claims about Christ, muddled together with a lot of just plain innacurate things about the truth of the universe.
But- as to who is or is not burning in hell- I don't think anyone on this forum, or in this world, is capable of drawing up that list.
Catholics believe, truly, in a triune God. We believe in an incarnational Jesus Christ, the hypostatic union. We believe in salvation as union eternally with God. That said...a lot of Christians suspect that we aren't Christians.
I guess the best all of us can do is pray for wisdom.
JD
Posted by: jd | Apr 26, 2006 1:56:19 PM
Hey Wendy,
Your point is well taken. There are many points in common and agreement between Catholics and LDS-believers. And considering the secular state of society, what we have in common is all the more valued.
However, this could also be said of Catholics and Muslims, Catholics and pro-life atheists, etc. That doesn't really address the ultimate merits of Islam or of being an atheist.
The question comes down to how we view the differences, and how essential, and important, those differences are.
At the start we can acknowledge that is a lot of good in Mormonism, much of which you listed above. So if we're using harsh terms, it's not to imply that a religion is worthless, but that it has such a lack that the good elements it has can't make up for that lack. That's philosophically what evil is, a privation.
It not clear to me what respecting beliefs means. I have a dear friend who is a militant atheist, and who rails against the fanaticism of theism, and the evil of Catholicism in particular. Yet he respects me, even while I'm being implicitly indicted by his abstract arguments. He doesn't respect Catholicism, but he doesn't want to unnecessary offend me either. There's a certain live and let live going on.
That attitude is probably easier for an atheist, because there are no eternal consequences one way or another.
A system based on revealed truth and eternal destiny can not be so indifferent.
Denying the fundamental mysteries of the Christian faith, in the Catholic system, is to destroy the faith entirely. And for Catholics, there are many things essential to salvation, faith, the sacraments, right teachings of morality, which other religions deprive their members of. Graver still is when those other religions are actively seek to place themselves in opposition to Catholicism by seeking the conversion of its members.
One could put it this way. If Mormonism is true it's doing a great good, if it's false it's doing a great evil.
You could apply this to other belief systems of course, including Catholicism.
In that sense, I think, people in ecumenical dialogues can cordially condemn each other's belief systems, though perhaps in more politic prose.
Perhaps the urgency is less present for LDS'ers, because there's a means of salvation after death, through baptism of the dead. But for Catholics the great battle and acceptance of the truth faith is reserved for this life, and thus the present hour, perhaps, is of greater moment.
As for Christianity, acceptance of the Nicene Faith might start as a basic definition. LDS theology clearly repudiates the Nicene faith. That's why there's the issues with Baptism, the notion of the "Trinity" is radically different from historical orthodox Christianity.
In some sense I'm surprised Mormons take issue with that. Isn't a foundation of belief the vast apostasy of Christianity since the apostolic age? So why are people eager to be called "Christian," if being Christian means being identified with apostasatic heritage?
Why Protestants would think Catholics weren't Christians, depends on how those Protestants define Christianity. If it's by the pillars of protestantism, sola fide, sola scriptura, and private judgment, Catholicism doesn't fit the bill. Similarly, in a sense Catholicism sees itself as the only true Chrstianity, so that calling separated brethren Christians is a term of politeness, just as we're referred to as Catholics and refer to the east as Orthodox.
Posted by: Breier | Apr 26, 2006 2:16:05 PM
BWS,
I did not see your comment, so here is a response to it.
The fact remains that by calling abortion murder you are calling the people who have had abortions murderers. I personally do not see this as a wise and valid exercise, even if you have noble goals.
Not true, or at least misleading. In a purely objective sense, those who perform abortions are murderers, but we can not judge whether or not they are culpable.
The fact remains that by saying belief in Jesus is necessary for eternal life, you calling people who don't believe in Jesus hell-bound. I personally do not see this as a wise and valid exercise, even if you have noble goals.
Same objection. If a person is not culpable for their lack of belief in Jesus Christ they may not be hell-bound. This point should be brought up in discussions about the matter.
The fact remains that by calling a viewpoint uncharitable you are calling the people who voiced it uncharitable, and plumbing their souls. I personally do not see this as a wise and valid exercise, even if you have noble goals.
I am not sure what exact comment you are thinking of, but it is not plumbing the depth of a person's soul to comment on what they are saying, that it is objectively uncharitable, or to describe a certain uncharitable attitude and call it that. There is no way to know for sure that the person really has this attitude, so I will generally put the comment in the form of a question or something. If the person responds with glibness about the very idea, I may point out what those words suggest too.
There seems to be this premise that "making fun" of something is wrong. Where did that come from? There are many legitimate purposes for laughing at error. For one, it shows the absuridity of error and makes us more likely to adhere to truth. Also, we often laugh so that we don't grow angry, or despondent. I laugh at many abuses in the Church, because if I pondered them without that humour I might grow enraged. Is that uncharitable? Hardly, it's an instrument of charity.
There seems to be a pseduo-scrupulous vein here, that sees laughter as a sin. But hard-hitting apologetical criticism, being academic, is OK? What's going on?
Perhaps we are getting at something here that depends on the person. Personally, I find humor much more bighting than serious but respectful discussion. It also to some degree discredits the person making the cracks, in my opinion. I think "are you so shallow that you must mock what you disagree with to strenghthen your own faith? Or do you take pleasure in the discomfort of others? Or are you just out for a laugh and don't care who it may hurt?" I'm not talking about comedy here, which I enjoy, but the kind of humor that humiliates someone else. Maybe that is just my sensitivity, and other people find serious criticism insulting.
Also, most of the stuff on this thread and the Twain quote are not that bad, which is why I tried to be ambiguous at first, until defending the sentiment and more clearly uncharitable words caused me to take a stronger stand, and address the more fundamental issue of never separating love from truth. Has everyone forgotton why we have doctrine at all, or why faith in Jesus Christ brings salvation?
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 26, 2006 2:22:31 PM
