James P. Overton observed that on nearly any issue there is a range of acceptable dialogue and that, outside of that window of acceptability, even free societies stifle discussion. The range of tolerated discussion spans the following categories.
Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy
For example, in the popular narrative right now, it is acceptable for Democrats to say (falsely) that Trump stole the 2016 election by colluding with Russia. It is considered radical for Republicans to declare that Democrats are engaging in psychological projection because their attempt to steal the election by colluding with Ukraine and Russia failed and they are now being exposed. The unthinkable is the allegations Q has made that certain politicians, government officials, media personalities, and other influencers are actually Satanists who are involved in child trafficking and the murder of children in their rituals.
When issues become popular or policy, they become very difficult to dislodge from the public mindset. They become part of a schema upon which the public perception of truth is pinned. To dislodge policy, it takes an enormous amount of effort and resources. What politicians do is identify where the boundaries of the acceptable range is on any given issue and attempt to chart their course. The liberal media establishment attempts to shift the range of the acceptable, constantly pushing it leftward. They seek to frame conservative viewpoints as radical or unthinkable while framing their points-of-view as sensible and popular.
In this regard, anti-Mormons use language like an Overton Window to frame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in an extreme or negative light. Here’s a very common example. The Murray Ledger is a small e-newspaper in Kentucky in a town of a little more than 17,000 people. My Google Alerts brought my attention to a short article written by Johnnie Hutchison, pastor of Green Plain Church of Christ. The article, titled “God Has a Plan,” is simply a short hit piece on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In it, Hutchison refers to the mainstream Christian view that the Bible is inerrant and warns against those who don’t agree with that doctrine. Then, in his “for example,” he states, “. . .The Mormon religion denies the all sufficiency of the Bible claiming that there is ‘another gospel’ contained in the Book of Mormon. . . .”
This is an example of using the Overton Window. The “acceptable” view for some 300,000 Protestant churches in the United States is that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible doesn’t declare itself inerrant. We know that the Bible itself is missing at least seventeen books to which it refers and that it contains errors in translation and transcription. It is considered “radical” for me to say this according to the framing of the narrative.
Let’s look at the use of the phrase “The Mormon religion denies. . . .” Latter-day Saints affirm that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We affirm an open canon of scripture; that is to say, God can, has, does, and will reveal new scripture as he sees fit. We affirm that the heavens are open and that God speaks to living prophets today. The use of the word “denies” intentionally slants the discussion toward acceptance of the Protestant narrative.
This happens all the time on almost every single issue. Because of the sheer number of Protestant churches and their ministers,all of whom have received at least some formation in anti-Mormon arguments during their seminary training, the Overton Window is set to control the discussion. It is their desire to have what they call "Mormonism" always seen as something “other” or outside the range of acceptability. In so doing, they fight against the truth and do the devil’s work.
Their use of the Overton Window over two centuries is effective. Consider that these Protestant ministers preach the inerrancy of a book in which, for four thousand years, God spoke to prophets—a book that affirms continuing revelation to living prophets—only to teach today a non-biblical doctrine that the heavens have been sealed since the first century. The logical fallacy is great, once you reframe the discussion.
The Bible defines the “acceptable” range as including living prophets, apostles, revelation, dreams, visions, angelic visitations, and even the revelation of new scripture. Hutchison cites the passage where Paul declares that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine. . . .” What scripture did Paul use? To what scripture was he referring? When was the New Testament written? Did the apostles of old add to existing scripture? Of course they did! If the Protestant narrative is accepted—if the Old Testament (the only scripture Paul had when he wrote that verse) was inerrant and sufficient for salvation—why did Paul add to it? When did the ancient Christians begin to teach that there would be no more revelation? Why did they come to that decision? Who were Montanus and Marcion? Dig and you will find answers that Pastor Hutchison and his 300,000 counterparts will not tell you.
When you encounter Latter-day Saint teachings for the first time, consider the Overton Window. Why do you believe what you believe? Do not allow the Protestant narrative to dictate what you may consider as acceptable. Read, ponder, pray, and ask God for him to show you truth. Commit to whatever truth he gives you.
Comments