There’s been considerable discussion over in The Corner lately about the Latter Day Saints; and having grown up around them, and thought about and studied Mormonism to some degree, I can’t help but chime in here.

For me, Mormon history and beliefs raise many questions; but above all stands the following puzzle.

I am a Catholic. I became a Catholic because I came to believe that the Church’s doctrine, and its take on the historical story of Jesus, were the truest and most intellectually sound things in the world of religion. I still believe this.

On the other hand, my studies of things LDS have led me to believe, by contrast, that the Mormon scriptures and teachings and history range from merely derivative to flimsy to untenable to scandalous to flat-out unintentionally hilarious. (Please forgive me, Mormon friends—I know such criticism must sting, but I never could make it through more than a few pages of the Book of Mormon at a time without collapsing in laughter.)

But, presuming I am right…what has each of these belief systems wrought in America, over the past 30-50 years? Even discounting for grass-is-greener distortion, I’d have to say that the LDS is comprehensively kicking both Catholic and mainline Protestant butts when it comes to family life, to personal morality, to faithfulness and loyalty and unity within the church community, and to evangelism outside it.

So the puzzle that I am left with is this: After all these centuries of debate and conflict and even religious war, could it be that history and doctrine are really not all that important after all? Can a faith community not only survive, but thrive and bear impressive fruit, even when their history is embarrassing and their teachings a train wreck? (And—closely related to this—when their leadership and administration have long been dominated not by holy men and charismatics and theologians, but by businessmen and corporate types?)

I don’t know. Maybe I am still hostage to the outsider’s grass-is-greener perspective. Maybe the present successes of the LDS can’t possibly last—in that it is still based on real grave weaknesses, or that it is more specifically suited to a particular culture and age, than for all people for all time.

But if not…then what does that mean?

Drinking From Home calls our attention to the BBC’s questionable judgment in choosing which reader comment to highlight on a story about the B16 kerfuffle.

I had read that story, and noted the breakout quote from reader John Lin of Illinois, a day or two previously. Not delving deeply into the comments, I had simply presumed that Lin was representative of the usual suspects who can be expected to hang around the BBC website. Drinking From Home convinced me otherwise.

Which is a shame. More people should take to heart Lin’s brave and insightful words. Here is the sentence the BBC chose to highlight:

Pope Benedict probably should self-criticise Christianity’s violent past before commenting on the other faith

As this controversy has swirled, I have been waiting, waiting for someone to finally point this out. A house-cleaning at home is surely in order before we dare question the Other; the West has avoided criticism of its own past for far too long.

I mean, just try to find a university professor anywhere in Europe or America who is willing to say anything bad about the past of Christendom. They’re rare as hen’s teeth…though not as rare as apologies from the Holy See. Pope Benedict’s predecessor was, after all, famous for his refusal to examine the past of the Church and offer any sort of apology to anyone. Mr. Lin is quite right to call our attention to this failing.

It will be a difficult struggle, but perhaps one day Western civilization will stop blaming all its problems on others. Perhaps one day Westerners will show a willingness to open themselves to unflinchingly honest self-criticism—that same willingness that has allowed Islamic civilization to surpass all others in science, politics, popular culture, and so many other fields of human endeavor.