CNN's view of prophecy within "Mormonism"


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/us/mormon-lds-name-change-revelation/index.html

As such articles go, this one is pretty good. Some minor gaffes, of course; when dealing with our religion, no reporter seems ever to really get it right. But on the whole, pretty accurate, I think. Of course, time must be given to dissenters and such. Whatever. I'm sure this comes across as cultishly ignorant to the leftist metropolitan self-anointed elite that read it, but that's okay. The gospel of Christ has never been embraced and appreciated by the cool kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall it was a positive article considering CNN wrote it. Personally, I'm stoked about all the Revelation we are getting from the Prophet. It is exciting and we should all be trying to receive our own personal revelation on the truthfulness of what President Nelson is saying anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so certain it's a positive article.  It sounds more like the author is doing their journalistic duty, but actually mocking some of the items for the discerning reader.

A prime example is the usage of Mormon, even within the article itself.

There are multiple instances where the writer points to things that for most, it would indicate a lack of logical or reasonable thinking in regards to our belief in the instance of the prophet.

I am not seeing it as a favorable article per se.

I think the journalistic approach has fooled some here to feel it treats the Saints and the Prophet with respect, but when one sees the hidden cues and the discrete mocking that is written into it (and once again, the most obvious and easy to see is the usage of the word Mormon in the article itself on the subject of NOT using the word Mormon to reference the Church or it's members, though there are MANY MORE that are not as blatant in the article that the discerning reader can easily find), it is hard to think that the article is actually anything close to being complimentary towards the Church or Russell M. Nelson.

In some ways it appears (to me) to also paint the Saints as members who are fanatics that follow without question or being able to think for themselves, and that in many ways they are far more in a cult and fanatics of a cult of personality than those who feel faith and spirit in helping them determine where and what to go and choose.

We as members with our blinders may feel it is being a good representation (as the wording follows what we feel we would say), but I think most who read it will see the mockery blatantly and obviously in their reading of it.

 

Just some of my thoughts on it when reading it.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not so certain it's a positive article.  It sounds more like the author is doing their journalistic duty, but actually mocking some of the items for the discerning reader.

A prime example is the usage of Mormon, even within the article itself.

There are multiple instances where the writer points to things that for most, it would indicate a lack of logical or reasonable thinking in regards to our belief in the instance of the prophet.

I am not seeing it as a favorable article per se.

I think the journalistic approach has fooled some here to feel it treats the Saints and the Prophet with respect, but when one sees the hidden cues and the discrete mocking that is written into it (and once again, the most obvious and easy to see is the usage of the word Mormon in the article itself on the subject of NOT using the word Mormon to reference the Church or it's members, though there are MANY MORE that are not as blatant in the article that the discerning reader can easily find), it is hard to think that the article is actually anything close to being complimentary towards the Church or Russell M. Nelson.

In some ways it appears (to me) to also paint the Saints as members who are fanatics that follow without question or being able to think for themselves, and that in many ways they are far more in a cult and fanatics of a cult of personality than those who feel faith and spirit in helping them determine where and what to go and choose.

We as members with our blinders may feel it is being a good representation (as the wording follows what we feel we would say), but I think most who read it will see the mockery blatantly and obviously in their reading of it.

 

Just some of my thoughts on it when reading it.

I agree, there is a mocking tone in the way he describes a sacred moment described by sister Nelson. CNN is not a good place to go if you are looking for friends of the church. Even the title is inaccurate. I did not like how irritated this article made me feel, because the spirit was not in it. He makes a mockery of the Prophet and our beliefs.

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I am not seeing it as a favorable article per se.

 

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

it is hard to think that the article is actually anything close to being complimentary towards the Church or Russell M. Nelson.

As I see it, the purpose of the article isn't meant to be favorable or complimentary to the Church or Russell M Nelson.  From reading it, its purpose isn't meant to be negative either.

It's merely a secular look from an outsider on the Church's position on the name of the Church.  In that sense, the article is pretty good.

I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that every news article written by non-members is going to be written with the spirit and provide a glowing review of the church.

While there are a lot of negative articles on our church out there, in this case I don't see this particular article as being a mockery or negative.  I agree with Vort in that it is pretty good, especially since it was written by a non-member journalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Scott said:

As I see it, the purpose of the article isn't meant to be favorable or complimentary to the Church or Russell M Nelson.  From reading it, its purpose isn't meant to be negative either.

It's merely a secular look from an outsider on the Church's position on the name of the Church.  In that sense, the article is pretty good.

I agree. At this point, an article that merely provides mostly correct information with no blatant examples of misinformation or trolling strikes me as unusually good, even if "good" really just means "not as bad as I'm used to".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
30 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

Does one care about what Pres. Nelson says, or what CNN says?  Who is your prophet?

Seriously?

I hope we all recognize the difference between "our Prophet" and "Our Lord".

I suppose you'd be in favor of removing "Praise to the Man" from our hymnal.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

The Lord works in mysterious ways.  I had as of yet not received a confirmation by the Spirit of Pres. Nelson's Prophetic mantle.  While I have faith in the established process of succession, I try to gain a testimony of each Prophet.

This secular article, probably because it was written from an unvarnished yet factual outsider's perspective, has brought me several steps close to gaining that testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I find the fact that the Church is ticking off the right people, strangely faith-affirming. ;) 

What is ironic is that the people who are most ticked off at the Church as well as the ones spreading most of the falsehoods about the Church are the same ones who the LDS often try to affiliate with and suck up to.   

That could be a whole different discussion and topic though. 

It is still related though since the recent move concerning the name of our Church is meant to emphasis that Jesus Christ is the head of our Church.

It is the mostly the conservative Christians who are the ones that spreading falsehoods about our Church, as well as saying that we aren't Christians.   It isn't CNN or the atheists.

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

What is ironic is that the people who are most ticked off at the Church as well as the ones spreading most of the falsehoods about the Church are the same ones who the LDS often try to affiliate with and suck up to.   

That could be a whole different discussion and topic though. 

It is still related though since the recent move concerning the name of our Church is meant to emphasis that Jesus Christ is the head of our Church.

It is the mostly the conservative Christians who are the ones that spreading falsehoods about our Church, as well as saying that we aren't Christians.   It isn't CNN or the atheists.

 

No, CNN and the atheists are just going around saying we kill gay kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 3/24/2019 at 3:59 PM, unixknight said:

Am I the only one who's feeling uneasy about CNN's sudden interest in bringing attention to the Church?  What will they do with that attention later, I wonder?

I wouldn't call it a sudden interest.  CNN and other news sources have always had an interest in the Church.  Since the time of Joseph Smith, the media has always been interested (and at times close to obsessed) about the Church.   

Here are roughly half a million google results for "CNN Mormons", though not all are from CNN:

https://www.google.com/search?q=cnn+mormons&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS744US744&oq=cnn+mormons&aqs=chrome..69i57.2047j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Perhaps surprising to many, most articles from CNN are positive towards the Church.  

Perhaps also surprising is that they are pretty accurate as to their Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Facts:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/us/mormon-church-fast-facts/index.html

The only statement I'd take issue with is the entry from 1835.  At best, it's a misunderstanding.   At worst, it's a gross misrepresentation.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 3/24/2019 at 12:08 PM, Scott said:

What is ironic is that the people who are most ticked off at the Church as well as the ones spreading most of the falsehoods about the Church are the same ones who the LDS often try to affiliate with and suck up to. 

How exactly have we sucked up to anyone?  Don't mischaracterize "finding common ground" with "sucking up to".

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
4 hours ago, Mores said:

How exactly have we sucked up to anyone?  Don't mischaracterize "finding common ground" with "sucking up to".

I'm not talking about our Church itself or its leaders, but there are a lot of LDS members who completely ignore the blatant misrepresentations made by conservative christian groups and churches while taking issue with something much less serious from an atheist or CNN, for example.   I'm not singling anyone out, but you can see the trend on this forum.  

If CNN or an atheist made a negative comment about the Church, there would be a lot of discussion about it among certain members.   It seems to me that when much worse things are said by conservative Christians, it is ignored and in fact much nicer things are said about them.   Personally, I do call that sucking up.

As I said earlier, it isn't the atheists or CNN who are spreading the most negativity and (often false) accusations towards our Church and members, nor are the atheists and CNN (for example) the ones claiming that we aren't Christians and constantly deliberately making misrepresentations of what our Church believes.   For the most part, its the conservative Christians that are doing that.   The atheist or even some news sources may mock our church, but not in the same way that many (most of them that I am aware of) conservative Christian groups are doing. 

This isn't an exoneration of the media or CNN, but at least they do have positive articles about our Church:

https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/opinion/obeidallah-mormon-christian/index.html

Contrast this with the kinds of things many conservative Christian groups are saying:

(what I linked is in white ink so you have to copy and paste it if you want to see it)

https://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Mormons.html

This is just one example; there is a lot worse out there.  

I don't think any conservative Christian group or church has a positive view of our Church.

Here is what is being said largest Christian forum in the country:

(what I linked is in white ink so you have to copy and paste it if you want to see it)

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/cults-groups/general-cult-groups-topics/mormonism

I didn't even read any of the stuff I just linked to because I already know the kinds of things that will be said from my previous years on that forum.  

I challenge anyone to find something positive from a non-LDS poster than says something positive about our Church.   You would have to dig before you found anything (unless the forum has changed; I haven't been active for a few years).  

From a standpoint of attacking our Church, CNN or the atheists are a lot less guilty of misrepresenting and attacking the Church than the conservative Christians have been.  

One thing I like about our Church is that although we claim to be the only true Church, at least now days, our church leaders don't really disparage other churches, even those with far different beliefs than our own.  We make claim to have a fullness, but that's different from an all out attack.  

 

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

If CNN or an atheist made a negative comment about the Church, there would be a lot of discussion about it among certain members.   It seems to me that when much worse things are said by conservative Christians, it is ignored and in fact much nicer things are said about them.   Personally, I do call that sucking up.

I do not disagree with you.

That said, I can see why this might be done. Even though so-called "Christian" sects have heaped abuse and hatred on our heads, they haven't normally gone much further than nasty talk. (At least not in the last 100+ years.) And most of that nastiness has come from a relatively few folks who have dedicated themselves to combating "cults", as they define them. In contrast, the CNNs of the world do not seek merely to belittle our religion; they seek to curtail our liberties. When everyone hates you but some people are less abusive than others, you tend to look at the less abusive as being more friendly. (Yes, that's hyperbole, but I think it captures the essence of what's going on.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
4 hours ago, Mores said:

Don't mischaracterize "finding common ground" with "sucking up to".

Just out of curiosity, can you what common ground we should try to find with the kinds of things conservative Christians are saying about our Church?
Let's start with the below article, which is not unusual at all and is very typical of what many conservative Christians and conservative Christian groups are saying and have been saying a long time about our Church.  

This is directly cut and pasted from a sermon given by James Melton, a pastor for the Bible Baptist Church.

What points would you say are the ones we should most be trying to find common ground with?   I posted the entire first part of the sermon, with no edits, so anyone can quote any certain sections of the sermon.  

What I said is in white ink so it is now invisible unless you cut and paste it.

https://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Mormons.html

The Plain Truth about the Mormons

The Mormon movement began with "the prophet" Joseph Smith, Jr. in the year 1820. Joe (as he was known) was born to some rather strange parents in 1805. His mother, Lucy, was involved in occult practices and visions, while his father, Joseph, Sr., consumed much time with imaginary treasure digging (including the booty of Captain Kidd).

According to Mormon writings (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:1-25), on a day in 1820, Joe was praying in the woods when he received a vision from God the Father and Jesus. It was revealed to Joe that the church was in apostasy and he was the chosen one to launch a new dispensation.

Being unwilling to drop his current occupation of money-digging with his father (while using "peep stones" and "divining rods"), Joe put his "calling" on hold for three years. Then, according to his own account (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:29-54), he was paid a bedside visit by the angel Moroni in 1823. Moroni, who professed to be the glorified son of a man named Mormon (who had been dead 1400 years), told Joe about a book of golden plates which contained "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel." This book was said to have been buried at Cumorah Hill, near Palmyra, New York, some 1400 years earlier by the man named Mormon. Four years later (1827), Joe supposedly dug up the golden plates along with a gigantic pair of spectacles which he called "the Urim and Thummim." The spectacles were for translating the hieroglyphics on the plates. With the help of his only legal wife and a friend named Oliver Cowdery, Joe translated the plates and published the Book of Mormon in 1830. Later that same year, Joe, his wife, his brothers (Hyrum and Samuel), and Cowdery established the "Church of Jesus Christ," which is known today as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints."

The Book of Mormon contains many plagiarisms of the King James English (at least 25,000 words). This is strange since the plates were supposed to have been in the ground many centuries before the King James Bible was completed in 1611! The Book of Mormon also contains many errors such as claims of elephants in the Western Hemisphere and advanced metal producing capabilities in America before 400 A.D. (See Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults for a fine study in the errors of the Mormon Bible)

The Mormons, under Smith's command, turned out to be a rough bunch. Joe was a polygamist with at least twenty- seven wives (some say over 60 wives). The whole gang left New York for Ohio, and then moved to Missouri. The Missouri governor ran them out of the state, so they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, and built the state's largest city. In 1844, Joe and Hyrum were thrown in jail. Then an angry mob stormed the jail and murdered them both. Naturally, this "martyrdom" insured the perpetual reverence of the great "prophet" Joseph Smith.

The "church" then split. The Smith family headed for Independence, Missouri and started what is now the "Recognized Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints." However, the majority of Smith's followers chose Brigham Young as their new captain.

To escape U.S. laws, Young led the Mormons from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City in 1847 (which then belonged to Mexico). For the next thirty years, Young and his "saints" laid the foundation stones of the Mormon cult.

Little known to most Mormons, Young was a rather rough and ruthless character. In 1857, he commanded Bishop John D. Lee to murder a wagon train of over one hundred helpless non-Mormon immigrants. Twenty years later Lee was convicted and executed by the U.S. Government. Young escaped punishment, and his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre has escaped the Mormon history books.

Young spent most of his "ministry" dodging the law to continue the immoral practice of polygamy. At the time of his death in 1877, Young had seventeen wives and fifty-six children.

Today the Mormon church is administrated by its "General Authorities." These authorities consist of the "First Presidency," the "Counsel of Twelve Apostles," the "First Quorum of the Seventy" and its presidency, the "Presiding Bishoprick," and the "Patriarch of the Church."

Male Mormons over twelve years of age are divided into priesthoods. The Aaronic order is the lesser priesthood, and the Melchizedek order is the higher.

The church is divided into thousands of "wards" and "stakes," with over 2000 branches and 180 missions, and over 5,000,000 members.

Mormons are very missionary-minded people, with over 26,000 active missionaries. However, much of this missionary army consists of young men and women in their early twenties who must serve two years in missionary work while supporting themselves.

The Mormon people of today are highly respected in our society, but there is nothing respectable about their doctrines.

Edited by Scott
Forum rule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

In contrast, the CNNs of the world do not seek merely to belittle our religion; they seek to curtail our liberties.

This.  Such attacks have come from Christianists in the past, and we shouldn’t forget that.  But as a political entity the Evangelical Right has largely been neutered over the past ten years; and at present it’s the secularists who are laying most of the philosophical groundwork for future legal restrictions against the practice of Mormonism.  

I’m also going to put my mod hat on for just a moment and note that while I get the point some are trying to make in showing that a lot of mainstream Christians really don’t like us—this forum does have rules about linking to or quoting anti-Mormon material, even if it’s merely in a demonstrative “look-what-people-are-saying-about-us!” context.  I would respectfully invite all parties to consider their comments in this thread to date, and edit as they deem appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share