You stated: "A recent caller to Sean Hannity's radio show, hosted that day by WABC's always lively Mark Simone, shockingly denied that Mormons are Christians. The implication was that evangelical Protestantism is absolute truth -- which would also put Roman Catholicism beyond the pale."
I don't know what the caller said, but the assertion that excluding Mormons from Christianity would favor evangelical Protestantism and would put Roman Catholicism outside of Christianity as well would very much surprise the Vatican. You see, it was in fact the Vatican that told the rest of Christianity that Mormons are not Christian, and having had this brought to their attention, all the Protestant denominations that have considered the question have agreed.
It started out when the Vatican was asked whether the Mormon baptism rite was valid. If you are Protestant and convert to Catholicism, you are not re-baptized; your baptism is considered valid and you are considered a Christian. It's just that you are (according to them) misled about some of the proper Christian doctrine and the nature and level of authority granted to the Roman Catholic Church. But Mormon baptism is considered invalid, and its adherents are not considered Christian.
The actual (and quite brief) ruling by Pope John Paul II in August 2001 is here, and a lengthy explanation of it is here.
The LDS [the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] is officially considered a non-Christian "cult" by the Roman Catholic Church. Since then, several other denominations have taken up the question and have agreed with the RCC. In fact, I have not found any denomination that does consider Mormons to be Christian. You need to do your homework here.
Ronald Fox
Willow Springs, Ill.
Many thanks to you and to the other Salon readers who sent detailed, indignant letters about Mormonism. It is true that I am perhaps excessively hypersensitive (given that I'm a professed atheist) to the arrogation to themselves by evangelical Protestants of the term "Christian."
Whatever the official ruling of the Vatican, however, it is in my view absurd to deny that Mormonism, despite the mythic claims of its founder, is a historical branch of Christianity. Assertions that belief in the divinity of Christ is a priori definitional of Christianity simply replay the theological disputes of the Middle Ages, when losers in the heresy wars were burned at the stake.
In the map of world religions, Mormonism is indisputably a subset of Christianity. It is perhaps futile to appeal to believers to overlook doctrinal differences, so I'm scarcely optimistic about convincing anyone. But my passionate interest in and commitment to religious study (which I have long argued should be integrated into primary and secondary education) is on the record. One example is my essay, "Religion and the Arts in America" (a lecture I gave at Colorado College in February), which has just been published by Arion and should be posted on its Web site by next week.
I feel compelled to write in response to the Salon reader who disparaged the Metropolitan Museum of Art in your April 10 column, questioning whether the museum has been sanitized due to the lack of visible, Viagra-like erections in the Greek and Roman galleries. Your reader, as well as anyone visiting New York, would do well to visit the recently reopened Greek and Roman galleries. There are plenty of butts, penises and breasts on display and, yes, even a few erections on the Greek vases in the upstairs gallery.
The renovation of the galleries has been an ongoing affair that was begun in 1990, and the results are well worth the wait. The space is truly a great addition to the museum and to the arts and culture of New York City. It is really more of a reinstallation, rather than a renovation, as the galleries were originally located in the space but were broken up and moved to make way for the museum's restaurant and some offices in the 1950s. Many of the pieces on display have been in storage since the 1950s, when classical art was not in vogue and not seen as a priority. Plus there was some sort of a backlash against promoting the art of the Roman empire, as it mirrored too closely the recent wartime events. Art and politics -- but classicism always makes a comeback.
As a native New Yorker, I regularly attend the Met, and the admission fee is suggested -- which means you may pay what you wish. This is truly unique among New York institutions, as it makes the museum accessible to anyone regardless of their income. Don't feel bullied into paying the full suggested amount -- the Met is a very rich institution; let the tourists be suckered into it. So I am happy to report that the Met is alive and well, and not censoring itself for the sake of middle American tourists.
As a bit of a culture vulture, on the same day that I visited the Met, I had also visited some contemporary art galleries down in Chelsea. While there definitely are contemporary artists who are making engaging and interesting work, so much of what is on display in the Chelsea scene seems very sophomoric and immature.
I just have this feeling that not much of what is being produced today, or being promoted by galleries in the inflated art market, has very much staying power, in contrast to the classical art at the Met. But then again, Warhol -- one of my heroes as well -- was not exactly embraced with open arms when he first appeared on the scene, and is now viewed as one of the greatest American artists. I guess time will tell with regard to today's contemporary art.
The one thing that I can say, though, is that what seems to be the major problem in contemporary art is that a lot of the work is too intellectual. It is too elitist. Anyone can walk through those classical galleries and be moved by the sculptures on view -- they speak not just to beauty but to the human condition, which hasn't changed much since Greek and Roman times. Warhol is the same -- even if you don't think about his work intellectually, it still grabs you with its garish colors, or its banal pop imagery. I think too many artists today spend too much time thinking and not enough time just letting the work speak for itself, on some instinctual level. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this subject.
Thomas P. Fernez
New York
Next page: The truth behind that Bowie/Paglia rumor