One, there are a lot of people who share values mentioned above but do not necessarily apply those into thier lives on a wider scale. The best example I can think of is Kerry as a Catholic. He says he is a devote Catholic but does not practice some of the basic teachings of his own doctrine. I believe Mormons are accountable to their church leaders for thier actions more. We are expected to live the standards of morality not just publicly proclaim what is right or wrong.

I also believe that the people we are at odds with are a very vocal minority. Those in favor of immoral social advances. They are not the majority as the election showed, but they are far more vocal about it. I believe one of the peculiar notions of Mormons is that we are a very vocal minority of the general majority that believes as we do. This makes us more visable to the world and may make us appear to be more peculiar than many other protestants that would agree with our values.

That was my point. The world doesn’t believe in historicity. The majority of LDS does. So an LDS member who believes in historicity is a majority within a minority. An LDS member who does not is a minority within a minority, which might be considered an even more peculiar position.

And Wilfried asks how non-Mormon Americans view Latter-day Saints. I would answer: in the exact same way as in Europe. I hope that noone thinks that Evangelicals have changed their position on the Restored Gospel any because of this uncomfortable political alliance (and Kaimi, don’t you see that you are simply framing the argument in a way that supports the point you want to make–after all, if both Latter-day Saints and other denominations share a belief in scriptural condemnation of homosexuality and end up on the same side of that issue in an election, then so what?, somehow that makes our myriad alien beliefs less peculiar?). Trust me, baptist preachers are still showing the Godmakers to their youth groups on Wednesday nights in all those red states.

Is it the LDS who believe in historicity — a majority within a minority — who are really peculiar? Or is it the LDS who don’t believe in historicity — a minority within a minority, and thus perhaps more similar to majority beliefs in some ways, but even less likely to find communities of generally like-minded individuals — who are the peculiar ones? I think that’s an open question.

Being unique among Christian faiths presents us with a hard argument to make. On the one hand, we insist that we are too Christians, on the other, that we’re different from all other Christian religions. Personally, I think it’s beneficial for the church to be part of the general Christian conversation, because it forces us to remember our common heritage of belief and scripture and, to a certain extent, tradition shared by all Christians. Our message ist first of all about Christ, not about Joseph Smith. However, we have to be careful of how the questions are framed. For example, the question “Are you saved?” and its variants are, I believe, alien to our religion, like asking a Jew if he’s Catholic or Protestant. For us, it presents us with a false dichotomy; if we answer “yes” or “no,” we lose the argument. To maintain our distinctiveness, we have to answer something like, “So what?” “None of your business!” or “I haven’t endured to the end yet!”