Dave's Mormon Inquiry

Christian Fraternity Draws the Line

As reported by the University of New Mexico student newspaper: the local chapter of Kappa Upsilon Chi will admit Baptists, Catholics, and Methodists, but not Mormons. The Wikipedia entry for KUC gives a clue to what's going on: "Kappa Upsilon Chi was founded in 1993 at Texas Tech University and has expanded across the southern United States of America." So it's a fraternity for ... a certain sort of Christian.

"Superheroes Aren't True"

That was one reaction to Bible action figures being test-marketed at a few Wal-Mart stores in Pennsylvania. Seems that customer was afraid his children would equate Action Jesus with Spiderman or the Hulk. Maybe Action Samson is a safer bet. If Pennsylvania is too far to drive, just be patient: Target will be selling them online starting next month.

Pictured to left: Action Moses.

This Just In: Protestant Revelation

Christian critics often roll their eyes about the Mormon claim to modern revelation. Now I'm not sure whether the critics' position is that prophetic revelation (as opposed to pastoral or personal revelation) simply doesn't happen anymore, or whether their point is that if it does it would not be to an LDS President or a Catholic Pope, it would be to some Protestant luminary. But the general thrust seems to be that prophetic revelation isn't needed because we have the Bible. So I was surprised to read GR's post on the Rev. Pat Robertson's way of speaking. GR quotes an AP article: In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007. Well.

Defiant Episcopalians

[Update: The law blog Concurring Opinions just posted a short commentary on several Protestant conventions (including the Episcopalian one I've been commenting on) noting that the liberal winds of change seem seem to be blowing in several denominations.]

Get Religion posted a fine summary of recent developments in the Episcopal Church and the larger Anglican Communion. It does a much better job than my earlier post in stating the two disputed issues that now threaten to split the Communion: (1) the election of female Bishops and now an Archbishop (roughly equivalent to an LDS General Authority), which is a problem because some conservatives will now be forced to decide whether to accept priests ordained at the hands of a female Bishop or reject them; (2) the denial or extension of the church rite of marriage to same-sex couples.

Anglicans Butting Heads

It appears the Anglican Communion is headed for a meltdown -- and this is something we ought to be following, if only so we realize the gay marriage/gay rights issue isn't just an LDS challenge. The Anglican Communion is the worldwide community of national churches with historical ties to the Church of England. The Episcopal Church is the US member of the Communion. Here's an article from the Times Online, basically admitting that schism is now upon worldwide Anglicans (with conservative US Episcopal congregations likely to formally exit the US Episcopal Church as well).

There was a last ditch effort at the recent Episcopal General Convention to broker a compromise (specifically Resoluton A161) as noted at the Father Jake weblog (he's an Episcopal priest who attended and blogged the Convention). It failed to pass, leaving the poor Archibishop of Canterbury in a difficult position. This is an issue that one just can't muddle through, it seems. Pick a side or be ripped down the middle.

Medical Ethics in the News

Does a Christian pharmacist who is thereby morally opposed to some contraceptives have a moral duty to not fill contraceptive prescriptions when presented? Alternatively, does his or her role as a pharmacist impose a moral duty to fill any legitimate prescription despite personal moral views or qualms? This scenario is no longer hypothetical, as apparently some Evangelical Christian groups pushing the first argument have begun affecting the behavior of pharmacists and doctors (link from Pharyngula).

This seems like a really dumb idea. First, it will probably backfire, as even those who might have sympathy with their moral concern don't want doctors or pharmacists--some other doctor or pharmacist, not their own!--subverting a prescribed pharmaceutical or medical treatment. Do we really want retaliatory doctor boycotts to become a routine feature of the daily news? Second, doctors and pharmacists will quickly find other viewpoints less palatable. How about an animal-rights pharmacist who refuses to dispense any drug for which animals were used in the testing regimen? How about a racial bigot who refuses to treat anyone who isn't visibly Aryan?

Religion News

From Ekklesia, a story and excerpts from the new but controversial Good as New Bible. Compare Mark 1:10-11 KJV, with this rendering: As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God’s spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, ‘That’s my boy! You’re doing fine!’ Peter becomes "Rocky," and Barabbas is "Barry." I don't think this will fly with the "thee and thou" crowd.

Christian Carnival XXIV is happening over at Parablemania: twenty bloggers have submitted links to longish, high-quality posts on various themes, and the carnival host posts each link with appropriately complimentary or critical commentary. What a great idea! Yes, I'm thinking of stealing it. Of course, here in the Bloggernacle we'd have to call it a pageant.

Albert Mohler has a fun editorial on Biblical illiteracy: One survey showed 50% of high school seniors thought Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife (or possibly a same sex couple?). Other survey examples were those who thought Billy Graham preached the Sermon on the Mount, and that gifted 12% that thought Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

Christianity Today has a review of Spiderman 2--they like it. No Jesus-speak in the review, but a nice little "Talk About It" box ("Why do bad things happen to good people?") at the bottom of the page. There's another box with quick highlights of things that might embarrass you if you took your 10-year-old to see it ("the movie is surprisingly wholesome—no sexual content or language to worry about"), which could actually be a handy thing to know.