Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: Mormonism (page 7 of 12)

Faith as a cudgel

I am sometimes amazed by the simple hell Mormons give each other.

In recent years, a number of Mormon intellectuals have been spreading the meme that what matters in the church is not correct belief (orthodoxy) but correct practice (orthopraxy). In other words… they believe that it doesn’t really matter if you believe in the principles and doctrines that the leaders of the church teach. So long as you conform to the practices that the church can easily measure, such as paying tithes, obeying the dietary restrictions of the Word of Wisdom, attending church meetings, and holding regular family night, then you are a good, faithful Mormon and beyond reproach, even if you spend your time on the internet, and elsewhere, trying to convince others to adopt unorthodox beliefs that are clearly contrary to church teachings and leaders.

Let’s call this “Orthopraxy” meme what it is: Pharisaism. Those who practice Mormonism after this fashion are modern Mormon Pharisees.

Ah, the anti-intellectualism. I remember it well.

Mormons set a high bar for themselves. It takes a lot of constant effort over your whole life just to be considered basically ‘active’. Except that for this guy, it’s not only enough to identify with the Church, or just to do Mormon things. You also have to believe the right things. In Orwellian terms, you have to be “goodthinkful”. And to do otherwise is to open yourself up to criticism from the über-righteous.

I don’t identify with New Order Mormons, either. [Carson N corrects me on what NOMS are about — see below.] Okay, so you’ve noticed that there’s a lot of shift in “when a prophet is being a prophet”, or that the Book of Mormon has major factual issues. Maybe you want to believe that the Church is true, but you’ve noticed that it teaches wrong things. The right answer is not to erect complicated apologetic structures just so you can hang on to your precious belief by your fingernails. (Especially when people take it upon themselves to come and stomp on your fingers.) So-called ‘liberal Mormons’ may be engaging in convenient rationalisations to support their belief (and what Mormon doesn’t?), but at least they’ve noticed that Mormon doctrine has holes in it, and they’re trying to figure out an nuanced explanation around the conflict. This guy seems to think that Mormon doctrine is straight-forward, which suggests that he’s not really paying attention.

I do agree with him on one score: don’t be a hypocrite. If you know your belief system doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t jibe with reality, get out of it quick. If you’re in it, be in it! But then, it is a bit tricky to believe in Mormon orthodoxy when no one is able to tell you exactly what Mormon orthodoxy really is from year to year. Doctrines are subject to ad hoc modification or disavowal (define ‘Lamanite’ anyone?), and only later will someone say, “That? Oh, we quietly stopped talking about that decades ago!”

So how about this, orthodox Mormons — define orthodox Mormon belief, and then get back to us. Until then, stop giving other people a hard time over beliefs you haven’t got evidence for. Imaginary conflicts like this one remind me why I’m glad I left.

Bonus thought: If you want everyone in your church to be super-believing, then make it possible for less-believing people to leave without all the social consequences, like divorce and character assassination. You can’t have it both ways.

UPDATE: It seems I’m not talking about NOMs, though the linked author sure sounds like it. I’m probably describing ‘liberal Mormons’. Carson N points out that NOMs are not by and large apologists. Which was confirmed to me by reading the NOM Forum. They’re just as cynical and disbelieving as any RfM poster, except that they’re Trapped by the Mormons. Which I find unbelievably depressing. I hope Carson’s right that many NOMs use The Third Way as a transitional state, and that as soon as possible.

However, my eye-opening NOM experience makes me want to reiterate my Bonus Thought above: Let my people go. It should be okay to leave a religion without professional or social repercussions. It would only make the members who are left more committed, which ‘Brother Tiny Stones’ would no doubt like. Sorry to any NOMs who felt maligned.

One more thing: I don’t think the word ‘cult’ is a useful label, but if I had to describe the essence of cultiness, I’d say two things:

1. People in a cult aren’t forthcoming about their doctrines to those that aren’t initiated.
2. A cult won’t let you leave.

By these two guidelines, the Mormon Church starts looking a lot cultier the more NOM stories I hear.

The church talk Rex would like to give

Everyone worships the same god — ours.

Shorter Dan Peterson:

Atheists wonder why we Mormons think our god is the right god, while everyone else’s god is the wrong god. But in fact everyone really worships our god, which is the right god. When people find out they’ve been worshipping the wrong god (which is actually the right god), I have it on good authority that the right god will give them a pass.

How terribly condescending. I wonder if he’d be just as happy to admit that he worships Allah.

And what about polytheism?

‘Moroni’s promise’ still not evidence

I can’t do much better than profxm’s takedown of this drivel from the Mormon Times. A guy named Lane Williams bemoans the fact that some journalists have decided that atheism is interesting and worth writing about.

As disappointing as it is to say this, reporters may not be able to do much better than provide a balanced conduit for atheists in the modern world we live in.

Dontcha hate when that happens? I mean, balance? But have no fear — since journalists are providing a ‘balanced conduit’, he’s going to use his journalistic influence to unbalance the balance, or something like that.

So my point today, really, isn’t so much about reporters; my point is to use the opinion format of this blog to take a public stand because so few news reporters can or do so.

Way to go, Lane. That’s what journalists should do — argue their side, regardless of how true or well-supported it is. And here’s where things go awry.

Mormonism’s last evidence sits in the power of the Holy Ghost that comes to the hearts and minds of those who seek God through earnest, submissive prayer and faithful action. It is an “experiment” successfully repeated millions of times around the world.

Prayer is not any kind of experiment. As I’ve pointed out, it relies on bad sampling, since everyone who doesn’t get a revelation is either struck from the sample, or told to repeat the experiment until they get the “right” answer. Test subjects are told what emotions to expect, so bias enters the picture. And so on.

You can’t use a ‘holy ghost’ to confirm the existence of a god. They’re part of the same story! That’s what you’re trying to ascertain. It’s like saying “I know Santa Claus exists because I prayed to him, and one of his reindeer told me.”

Millions of Mormons, including me, would say that God answers prayers because of their own experiences with the Holy Ghost and prayer. Therein lies our evidence that God lives. I assume other religious believers feel much the same way.

That’s part of the problem. Many other religious believers feel the same way… about their mutually incompatible, multiply conflicting religious claims! Anyone who knows about science has heard that anecdotal evidence is not data. And notice the bandwagon fallacy. If this is the best Mormonism can do, they’d better give up their scientific pretensions.

Then he says, in a hushed voice, deep with portent, “I know.”

I study Shakespeare and have many books that have inspired me for years, but when I read the Book of Mormon for the 30th time or so and experience a deep, almost mysterious reassurance no other book has come close to giving me amid trial, I know.

I have experienced many joys of human interaction at holidays and in evening activities, but when I experience the quiet, soul power of priesthood blessing called down on a dark night, I know.

I am only one flawed journalist, but in the midst of the atheism debate that Gervais and others continue in our public space, I must say something. I know.

No, you do not know. You’re just certain. There is a difference. Even if your claims were coincidentally 100% right, you still would not know that they were true. Knowledge does not come from intuition or feelings. Knowledge comes from observation of real-world phenomena. And this kind of evidence is nowhere to be found.

This is my beef with religion and supernaturalism. It is such a lazy way of thinking (or not thinking). You take your own beliefs and preconceptions, and just assert them over and over again without trying to back them up with any real evidence. You get to feel all spiritual and believing. But it stops you from learning anything.

Mormon young adult fiction: Preserving Racial Purity edition!

Today’s inspirational reading for youth is from the 1956 classic, “Choose Ye This Day” by Emma Marr Petersen. Yes, that’s the wife of Mark E. Peterson, an apostle during the swinging 70s. While it’s not quite as authoritative as if Elder Petersen had written it himself — although he might have, who knows, plausible deniability being what it is — I doubt Sister Petersen would have strayed too far from his ideas. (She was known to share the stage with Elder Petersen on one occasion.) At the very least, the book is an interesting indicator as to the kinds of thoughts that were welcome in the Petersen household.

In this chapter, trouble is brewing at a small college when Milo Patterson, a black student, takes a spot on the football team over the protests of students. Some students decide to ask Hank, an older, respected member of their community and a Latter-day Saint, what position he takes on the matter. Hank, who serves as the voice of the author, launches into a frighteningly candid defense of institutionalised racism in the LDS Church and society in general, using the tried-and-true ‘blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal life’ argument that I heard many times during my Mormon days. At least Hank/Emma doesn’t advocate total banishment of the seed of Cain. He/she only asks that blacks endure partial social acceptance throughout their lives, and then eternal servitude in the highest Mormon heaven — but only if they’re righteous.

This extract serves as evidence that, yes, the idea that Africans were less valiant in the pre-mortal life was well-known and taught at one point in LDS history (note that Hank has been taught these things ‘all [his] life’). But it also shows that Mormon doctrine can change when members draw upon their capacity for fairness and justice, and ignore dogma coming from the many apologists in their midst.

Might a knowledge of evolution have helped Emma Petersen? When you understand that some people have dark skin because of evolutionary adaptation (instead of picking some self-serving supernatural reason, like “they’re evil”), it reduces your need to take scraps of mythology and weave them into a complicated justification of whatever social prejudices are prevalent in the religious community. But then, neither of the Petersens went in much for evolution. Sister Petersen’s book shows a creationist professor giving an evolutionist professor a good thrashing in a debate, while Elder Petersen once opined that evolution was Satan’s way of destroying America via atheism.

Happy reading! Scans at the bottom.

CHAPTER EIGHT
HANK’S POINT OF VIEW

THAT night when they went to Hank’s for a snack, a large group of students were watching TV. Hank himself waited on the two boys.

When he brought the order, Kent said in a voice loud enough to be heard by the other students, “Hank, what do you think about this Patterson rebellion over at school?”

Many wished to know what Hank thought about it.

“My attitude on this subject is pretty well guided by my religious views,” he said, “so I hope you won’t mind if I mix a little religion with what I say.”

The other students held Hank in such high regard that they listened respectfully.

“My religion teaches that our existence did not begin when we were born into mortality. We lived before we came to this earth. We were persons then as we are now.”

“Are you talking about reincarnation?” one student asked.

“No, not at all,” said Hank. “I certainly do not believe in reincarnation. We have one existence in mortality, and that is all. I mean that before this earth was made, we lived and worked and played together in another estate.

“We could do as we pleased there, too, just as we can here. Some were not as obedient as others, and naturally they didn’t get along as well.

“We are the children of God, as you know. We were with him. We were his family.

“It is my understanding that at one time our Heavenly Father called us all together and announced that he was planning to send us to this earth where we could be tested and tried under mortal conditions, to see if we would be worthy of further advancement in his kingdom.

“The Lord explained his plan to us at that time, but some of his children did not accept it, and rebelled. This rebellion was led by one of the brightest, but also the most ambitious and selfish of all God’s children. His name was Lucifer. About a third of all the spirits in heaven joined him in this rebellion. They were all driven out, and they became Satan and his followers.

“This fight up in heaven was very much like wars in this life. Some of God’s defenders were more valiant than others. Some were disloyal, but not so bad that they had to be driven out with Lucifer.

“When the time arrived for us to come to this earth, it appears to have been the plan of the Lord to reward us according to our loyalty.

“How could he do that? It seems quite easy, as I look at it, for he permitted those who were most obedient to be born into this life with white skins, and to have opportunities such as are to be had in our country.

“Others were born with dark skins in the jungles of Africa or in the valleys of the Amazon. Still others were born in China or Korea, or India, where opportunities are not as great as here.

“It was a case of reaping what we sowed. I have this same understanding regarding rewards in the life after this where we will be placed in a degree of glory or in other circumstances according to what we earn in this life.”

“Do you mean, Hank,” broke in one of the girls, “that a white person is born white because he was more valiant than others in the life before we came here, and that a colored person was born colored because he was not so valiant?”

“That is exactly what I mean,” said Hank. “How else could all this apparent inequality be explained?”

“Can other races get all the blessings of the Church?” asked another.

“All except the Negro,” said Hank. “He is under a greater handicap than all the others. Japanese, Chinese, Hawaiians, Indians, Koreans, and people of all other races may have all the blessings of the Church, including temple marriage, but not the Negro.

“Evidently because of what he did in that other life, he is placed under a ban and cannot have the priesthood, he cannot advance as far as other people.

“But I would like to say this, though. I have heard some of our leaders teach that even the Negro can go to the celestial kingdom if he is faithful. However, he can be only a servant there. But that is more than many white people will receive, for many of them will be placed in the lower degrees of glory in the next world, because they did not live righteously. So in some respects, Negroes, if they are faithful, may receive a higher glory in the world to come than those of other races who defile their birthright.”

“But what about this football argument? How does all this fit in there?” asked one of the students.

“It fits in like this,” went on Hank. “Each race may develop within itself. So far as the Negroes are concerned, we will give them every right and privilege within their race that we claim for ourselves within our own race, but we will not become intimate with them in any way, and we will not intermarry with them. That is my own personal feeling on this question, and it is what I have been taught all my life. I believe that is a fair position to take, and I believe it squares with the word of God.

“Too close association with them might lead to intermarriage and that would bring the curse of Cain upon children born to such a marriage.

“I must admit that one great danger in being as tolerant as we would wish to be is that some of our people lose their balance and forget that there is after all a barrier between white people and Negroes which should never be crossed. It was the Lord and not man who established that barrier. When man tries to break down a wall set up by the Lord himself, he is asking for trouble, and only trouble can come from intermarriage between white people and Negroes.

“You may not know it, but the Lord anciently commanded that His people should not marry the descendants of Cain, just as he commanded that His people should not marry unbelievers and idolators. If we were not faced with the danger of intermarriage with the Negro, we could be much more tolerant than we are. But there are some leading Negroes who advocate complete absorption of their race with the white race by intermarriage and that is something which I for one can never accept.

“Marriage between white and black people, as I see it, is a violation of God’s commands. So we must avoid steps which would lead to such a thing.”

“I take it, then,” said one of the students, “that you would be in favor of allowing a Negro to play on our football team, as long as we did not take him so far into our social life that some white girl might become infatuated with him.”

“That is just what I believe. I support the school president and the governor in what they have done, and I think you students should do the same.”

“Well, if that’s what you believe, I guess we’ll give the idea another whirl,” Steve said. “Pat’s a good fellow and a swell football player. How about it?”

“Whew, quite a speech,” said Kent, “but I’m game.”

    

Prayer is a strange concept anyway, but this…

Brodies for 2010

It would appear that a few Good Reason posts have been nominated for the 2010 Brodie Awards. Many thanks to the nominators!

Even if you don’t vote, that link is worth checking out just because of all the great, funny, irreverent posts from other ex/post-Mo’s. I think it’s kind of cool that we have such a large, vibrant community these days.

The Provo Tabernacle died for your sins

The Provo Tabernacle burned down. It’s a real shame. I went to church there a couple of times in my Utah days, and I remember it as a good old building. It would have made a nice library in 100 years.

One might wonder, of course, why the Mormon god would allow a church building to be destroyed by fire as he watches, pitiless and indifferent to human affairs. One might even wonder what message he intends to send. Perhaps an Old-Testament-style message of anger and vengeance! The fire and destruction symbolic of the wrath to come. A Mormon might get a sense of divine disapproval, and that would never do.

But wait! It’s a Christmas miracle!

As the four-alarm fire raged at the Provo Tabernacle, firefighters and those watching helplessly from the sidewalk observed something truly remarkable. Some are even calling it “a Christmas miracle.”

A painting of Jesus Christ burned in the fire, save for the image of the son of God [yes, that was the wording chosen by Fox News], which was left unscathed.

Yep, the church burning down isn’t the real takeaway here. It’s the painting. That’s the ticket.

This is the Argument from Incomplete Devastation, one of many ways to creatively interpret events in order to sustain a narrative that you already believe. Religious folk are quick to use this one because in the face of disaster, there are only two possible outcomes — either your faith is boosted, or your faith is boosted more. You have to admire their optimism, at least.

Here’s the scorched painting. Coming soon to a fireside near you.

Wait a minute! Forget about Jesus — that outline around it looks strangely familiar! Could it be the hunched figure of…

Nah.

Michael R. Ash concedes, and then misses, the point

I haven’t commented on Mormon apologist Michael R. Ash’s stuff for a while, for the simple reason that when someone’s wanking, it’s rude to interrupt. But he’s been going on like that for quite a while, and I’m afraid he’s going to hurt himself. He’s been covering the Book of Mormon bit by bit, and it’s the same old tactic Mopologists have always used: rather than find evidence for religious claims, just cast about for a nearest match, and say that this shows the claim is ‘plausible’. For example, Ash thinks the Tree of Life metaphor is plausible because early people used the same metaphor. (Really? Ancient people knew about trees?) Or look around for features of ancient boats for a nearest match so you can validate Jaredite barges. Find an NHM inscription somewhere, and try to match it to ‘Nahom’. As long as it looks close enough to something out there, you can claim a match, coincidence be damned.

But lately, he’s been writing about the Tower of Babel. Ah, Babel. It was one thing that did Mormonism in for me, as I’ve recounted here. The short version: The T of B presents a special problem for Mormons. It’s a myth about why there are different languages, but Mormons can’t really play it off as a myth because the author of the Book of Mormon wrote into it a character (the Brother of Jared) who was ostensibly at the Tower at that time. If you concede that Babel’s a myth, then the Book of Mormon can’t be taken completely literally, and this makes for shaky ground for Mormons.

I’ll be addressing the problems with Babel from a linguistic perspective in a later post. For now, let’s just point out that Mike Ash concedes that the Tower story might be mythical…

it’s possible that the confounding of tongues is an aetiological myth or legend that attempts to explain the divergence of languages. Anciently, such traditions were passed from generation to generation and, in a pre-scientific era, were never questioned for historical or scientific accuracy.

…but fails to see why that is a problem for the Book of Mormon.

While some believers may prefer either a literal or mythological approach to this topic, we should be careful to understand that a mythological approach doesn’t mean that the Nephites were fictitious. Ancient histories and scriptures can contain mythical elements as well as actual history.

Let me explain: If something is a ‘myth’, then that means ‘it didn’t happen’. So if your book claims that literal people were there for that event, then it’s wrong.

Not for Ash.

We don’t have the brother of Jared’s personal journal. We have Joseph’s translation (which was dictated in King James vernacular) of Moroni’s abridgment of Mosiah’s translation of Ether’s long-after-the-fact traditions. Perhaps the tower saga was part of the Jaredite lore which Ether interpreted according to his cultural heritage and recorded on his plates.

Ancient redactors (or abridgers) — which include Moroni and Mormon — were editors who often added to or adjusted elements to fit their view of the story or to square with the conclusions they were attempting to project.

Redacted by Mormon and Moroni? Well, what did they know? They were only prophets! They weren’t as smart as Mike.

In other words, even if he’s right, and if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, its message is still just a fourth- or fifth-hand account through a string of biased and uncomprehending middlemen. Which is convenient for Ash, because then he has a lot of latitude to massage the text into whatever he wants. But it opens the question of why anyone should believe such a muddle to be a factual record at all. I hope Mormons are paying attention, because what Ash is showing is that you have to dismantle the Book of Mormon in order to defend it.

But this Babel blunder does not weaken the Book of Mormon’s veracity in Ash’s estimation at all. Of course not. On the contrary, it actually strengthens it.

If the Book of Mormon was written by real ancient people it should contain ancient mythological elements.

See how it works? The more mistakes, the truer it gets! Let’s see if we can take it farther: Real people make mistakes, and real people lie. If the Book of Mormon contains mistakes and lies, that just proves that it was written by real people!

Real people from the 1800s, that is.

Uchtdorf tells ’em what they want to hear

That was quick.

Mormons may not know until the hereafter what causes same-sex attraction, but “God loves all his children” and expects everyone to do the same, an LDS Church leader said Sunday.

While the message — delivered to more than 200,000 Utah Mormons — may not seem significant, the messenger was.

As second counselor in the governing First Presidency, Dieter F. Uchtdorf is one of the highest-ranking leaders in the hierarchy of the nearly 14 million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to address the thorny topic of whether same-sex attraction is inborn.

Ain’t that sweet?

But what qualifications does Uchtdorf have to address whether SSA is inborn? None — he’s just a mystic. No, he was sent to ‘Save the Sale’. Church doctrine changes when it looks like it’s going to affect the bottom line. Hating on homos made good business sense in the past (and thus good doctrine), but it’s been playing increasingly poorly as of late. Answer: Downplay Packer, so Uchtdorf gets to be the good guy.

“Many questions in life, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life,” Uchtdorf said. “Until then, the truth is, God loves all his children, and because he loves us, we can trust him and keep his commandments.”

Have you ever noticed how that ‘wait until the next life’ thing gets played a lot?

Some audience members welcomed Uchtdorf’s approach, which seemed more consistent with the church’s position.

“It seemed fairly close to the line we’ve been getting lately — the idea that the practice is sinful, but homosexual tendencies are acceptable within the church as long as people don’t act on them,” said Jennie Pulsipher, a Mormon who watched the regional conference via satellite at her east-side Salt Lake City stake center. “He also emphasized that [gays] should be treated lovingly as children of God.”

Hear that, gay people? Mormons will treat you like humans, as long as you never have sex for the rest of your fucking life. Sounds like a deal to me.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑