OK, if this seems a bit to GD-ish for this forum, sorry. But I do post this in the interest of increasing understanding.
Not really. It was a fair attempt to make her point within the analogy Bluesman made. Of course, it was an insulting and demeaning analogy, and that Monty thinks it cogent says a good deal about him. I think pldennison explained it well on page 2.
Hmmm…
There seems to be an assumption on the part of some posters here that we should just ignore the beliefs of any “other” religion; that we should not criticise it, insult it, or analyse it in light of our own; and that (Nicene-orthodox) Christians who disagree with Mormonism shouldn’t object to this apparently other thing, which is surely none of their business. (Of course, this is distinct from saying, “Not in this forum, go to Great Debates.”)
Well, humour me a moment, and I’ll tell you some history.
The “LDS” church was formed because it took the position that the other Christian churches (all of them) were corruptions, teaching false doctrine. The term “Latter-Day Saints” naturally sticks in the craw of Evangelicals, Pentecostals & Baptists, who figure they are the true saints, and the “Mormons” are teaching false doctrine. Easily, they could both be wrong. They could not possibly both be right.
Let’s be perfectly clear here: The LDS/Mormons claim to be the true Christianity, and consider the rest of the Christian churches to be missing the point of Christianity. And they have, in the past, insulted the beliefs of other Christian sects about the nature of God. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that this profound philosophical disagreement about the actual–or even possible–nature of God is the reason for the existence of the LDS church.
The Evangelicals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Catholics, etc., see the Mormons as overlaying spurious doctrines and traditions on Christianity, and figure that the true Christianity is closer to what is taught in their churches. While the Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Catholics, don’t all agree on everything, they do agree that Joseph Smith was a snake-oil salesman, and that the Mormon construction of “Christianity” is being falsely advertised as the true form of their (i.e., non-Mormons’) religion.
There’s a natural need for debate here, and it’s natural to both sides to get into it. (Although not in this thread, thanks.) And it will get–must get–offensive at times. This is nothing new. Ex gratia, both Christianity and Islam are reactions to archaic forms of Judaism.
Of course it was! The explicit condemnation of that aspect of Judaism–the exclusive Aaronic priesthood–is central to her faith! It is a vital tenet of at least some forms of Protestant thought that the Aaronic priesthood was abolished by God, and that there is now “a priesthood of all believers.” That assertion, an assertion about the Temple cult of ancient Judaism, is not just an attack on some foreign culture, but a definition of what her Christianity means for her.
That’s the thing about this variety of religious philosophy (Islam, Christianity, and variants). The different traditions historically interconnect, they explicitly contradict each other, and they naturally war against each other. Not to understand the necessity of that war is not to understand the nature of such a religion.