The Evils of Harry Potter: A Lesson in Context
Apparently my writing skills are in need of serious refinement, because I got some pretty harsh initial response to this post. For those of you who are not familiar with me or my beliefs, please understand that this post is intended to be satirical.
One of the most memorable moments to me from the first Harry Potter movie was near the beginning when Harry and his family were sitting at home on the Sunday after all the owls began to arrive. It was memorable because it set a tone for the rest of the movies that illustrates perfectly the pure and subtle evils of the series. Uncle Vernon was quite pleased with circumstances that day. When he asked no one in particular why he should be so, Harry answered with the obvious, "There's no post on Sunday," which his uncle affirmed. Of course, we all know what followed. Even on the day of rest, those immoral wizards could simply not leave the affairs of the world alone. No, they proceeded to demonstrate their wickedness by pursuing their attempts to contact young Harry in spite of the sanctity of the day. Sabbath-breaking wizards.
With such blatantly iniquitous role-models as these, it's no wonder our children are wandering in mists of darkness.
Obviously, no one who did not approach the movies in their proper context would have been able to sense this attempt to lead a whole generation astray and deceive the very elect. But let me sound the warning cry: not only is Harry Potter a series of Hollywood movies which are the dark domain of idolatry and foul sophistry, but they are about witches and wizards. There is no such thing as magic, and therefore these films are about devil-worship. Plus, the books they are based on were written by a British woman, which is un-American.
If that's not enough to shake your faith, consider these direct quotations from the Book of Mormon, both spoken by prophets:
"Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection" (Alma 40:2).
"...there is no God...Christ cometh not" (Alma 30:40).
Now we know what Mormons believe. Look it up for yourself.
One of the most memorable moments to me from the first Harry Potter movie was near the beginning when Harry and his family were sitting at home on the Sunday after all the owls began to arrive. It was memorable because it set a tone for the rest of the movies that illustrates perfectly the pure and subtle evils of the series. Uncle Vernon was quite pleased with circumstances that day. When he asked no one in particular why he should be so, Harry answered with the obvious, "There's no post on Sunday," which his uncle affirmed. Of course, we all know what followed. Even on the day of rest, those immoral wizards could simply not leave the affairs of the world alone. No, they proceeded to demonstrate their wickedness by pursuing their attempts to contact young Harry in spite of the sanctity of the day. Sabbath-breaking wizards.
With such blatantly iniquitous role-models as these, it's no wonder our children are wandering in mists of darkness.
Obviously, no one who did not approach the movies in their proper context would have been able to sense this attempt to lead a whole generation astray and deceive the very elect. But let me sound the warning cry: not only is Harry Potter a series of Hollywood movies which are the dark domain of idolatry and foul sophistry, but they are about witches and wizards. There is no such thing as magic, and therefore these films are about devil-worship. Plus, the books they are based on were written by a British woman, which is un-American.
If that's not enough to shake your faith, consider these direct quotations from the Book of Mormon, both spoken by prophets:
"Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection" (Alma 40:2).
"...there is no God...Christ cometh not" (Alma 30:40).
Now we know what Mormons believe. Look it up for yourself.
Comments
2 Nephi 7:11 Behold all ye that kindle fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks, walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks which ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand—ye shall lie down in sorrow.
It is self-righteous attitudes like yours that drive people away from the Gospel. Your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing attitude is not in harmony with the Gospel.
Furthermore, your "un-American" comments are shameful and full of hate.
The funny thing is, one of the labels you put on this post was "context." Because, as you noted, the true nature of this post is only discerned when it's considered in context with your larger blog. So if we miss the "context" label, well, then we might just miss it all!
Who knew those tiny labels could be so important?
And please, Adam, don't let it deter you from future satirically-minded posts. I think you've got a lot to offer in that realm!
Down with that evil, Sabbath-breaking Harry Potter.
The most interesting thing to me - and this is in no way derogatory towards anyone - is that after all my efforts to provide thoughtful analysis and generate meaningful discussion in the past, all I had to do bring the comments out is trash-talk Harry Potter. Of course, I think my deliberate twisting of a couple of scriptures had something to do with it too.
First off, I like your name.
Secondly, thanks for taking the time to comment here. We welcome all comments and commentators, although I prefer personally that most comments be related to the subject of discussion.
Thirdly, it was your choice to bring this discussion here, so forgive me if I don't take up your offer to continue it elsewhere. I did look at some of the links from your profile, and you seem like a sincere person to me. I appreciate that. However, I will confine discussion with you, for the present, to this thread.
Now, I do think that your comments have to do with this post, although probably not in a way you would like. I think they further illustrate my points about how people take LDS scriptures out of context to try to prove them false.
I don't want a "shouting" match or any kind of ill feelings among us, so I submit this counteroffer: if you are willing to engage in a thoughtful, respectful, and good-natured discussion about our beliefs or some other topic - based on the merits of our ideas without passing condemnation around, then I am also ready and wiling to do so. This kind of discourse befits Christians, whether you think works necessary to salvation or not. If you are simply intent on fishing for converts without interpersonal consideration, or if you merely want to smear Mormons, and if you have no more productive contributions, then we have nothing more to say to each other.
As a gesture of good faith, let me begin by responding to the ideas you set forth, but in the next comment, as this is getting long.
Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesperson for the Church, and nothing I say should be construed as an official statement of anything other than my personal beliefs - the doctrines *as I understand them.* This may seem silly, but I assure you it is necessary.
To start with, your opening assumption that Mormon doctrine precludes the possibility of assurance of salvation is erroneous. Mormons are encouraged in canonized scripture and by their leaders to actively seek this confirmation. Indeed, the assurance of exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is the ultimate goal of faithfulness in this life.
While the uncertainty you speak of is common enough in the Church, I think it is based in possibly misguided attempts at humility rather than a reflection of doctrine. I don't think it should be that way either, however, more than a one-time prayer to accept Jesus is necessary. Let me ask you a question: if you accept Christ as your personal Savior by saying such a prayer (which I assume is the approach you would take - correct me if I'm wrong) and your daily actions do not reflect an effort to become like Christ, have you really accepted Him? After all, He was the master teacher of good works, both in word and in example. To accept Him means to believe His doctrine and follow it.
You may notice I'm not using any scriptures. That's on purpose. I could, but until I know whether you want to engage me or not, I don't want to seem like I'm bible-bashing.
I will say, however, that your interpretation of Alma 11 is exactly what this post was about - it's way out of context. In fact, you're making the same argument the erroneous parties in that chapter were making. Christ does not save us in our sins, He saves us from our sins, which that very chapter makes clear.
You may or may not be surprised to read that I agree with much of what you said. I do sin continually. So do you. Unless, of course, you've achieved perfection - and I don't mean through the grace of Christ. If you were perfect, you wouldn't need that grace, but I assume you agree that you need it as much as I do.
As to the D&C reference, the Bible also asserts that we must be continually obedient. This is nothing new or revolutionary. Again, I'll provide references if you respond to this.
I don't think sinning less will qualify me to live in God's presence. I think repenting after I sin - and therefore accepting the atonement of Christ in my life by ordinance and covenant - will make me eligible for that gift.
"God chooses to justify us by faith. Jesus alone does the “perfecting” (Heb 10:14). God gives peace to those who trust in Him alone. If you don’t have this peace, it’s probably because at least a part of you trusts in yourself."
As to this, I agree completely. So does Mormon scripture.
Thanks for your comment again.
See what happens when you get serious? People shut up. Tragic.
(incidentally, you played it so straight that had I read this before you posted your disclaimer I would likely have been confused until the butchered use of scripture)
Tell me about it. All I want for Christmas is an engaging online discussion or two (on my blog, that is - I find lots of them elsewhere). :)
Oh, and thanks for the feedback on style. I wasn't sure how this approach would work for me because I'm usually a pretty straight player. People always said that they could never tell when I was joking... But I wasn't so much joking as trying to replicate the barbaric attitudes I've found out there. It's interesting to me that my use of scripture gives me away. I'm not sure what that says about me. Maybe just that even I couldn't misinterpret the Book of Mormon that badly.
You know, I might not have blown my cover so soon but for Tori (the first commenter). She is among the best friends I've ever had and I couldn't respect her more, although we haven't seen each other for some time. I couldn't abide the idea that I she should think I actually meant those things I wrote - mostly because of the attitude that they display. We cleared it up elsewhere, for the record. Next time I'll have to hold out longer because I would really have liked to see your response (if any) to version 1.0. Of course, now I've lost the element of surprise. Drat.