General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSympathy toward unusual Religious Practice
Last edited Mon Oct 22, 2012, 10:18 AM - Edit history (3)
(This post is not about the truth or falsity of any religious doctrine, but rather about the place of of religion in society)
Had dinner with friends and talked about Billy Graham tacitly endorsing the idea of giving a man he believes to be a heretic and cultist control of our nuclear arsenal. Hard to picture giving the nuclear launch codes to a Scientologist.
And, since I'm an atheist, the usual points were made about how I don't fault Mormonism for being false, as such, because all religions are. (In my opinion. I don't mean this post to be about whether there's a god.)
And, being raised Catholic, I usually have a high tolerance for weird ritual and trappings. I have attended Latin masses where hardly anyone in the audience knew what was being said, and in that context you can really see how odd it all ispretty much the same to me as a religious service in Arabic.
But I do have a degree of respect and considerable tolerance for Catholicism and Judaism and Islam that I do not have for Mormonism.
It isn't that Mormonism is false, it is that it is not ancient, and that makes all the difference.
I go to mass, or watch the folks gathering around a mosque, or go to a friend's son's bar mitzvah and it all seems like something from the dawn of civilization. "Why are you acting like people did thousands of years ago? ...wearing robes and chanting and singing in dead tongues?"
And they say, "We are following an ancient cultural tradition. It is a connection with our community going back more than a thousand years. My great-great-great-great-great grandfather spoke these words on this day."
Okay, not my thing but I understand it. It is primitive because it is ancient, and it is a connection to antiquity and that's fine... why not? People dress up like Ben Franklin on the 4th of July.
But when somebody starts laying down a rap about the Thetans and chanting in some bizarre tongue I do not respect the vast historical sweep of their tradition and how it helps people self-define their place on the planet and find meaning in their lives.
I think, "On no... a Scientologist."
A science fiction writer decided, in the mid-20th century, to create a science-fictiony religion as something to publish in science fiction magazines.
The general tolerance one has for ancient ethnic/cultural/philosophical tradition (assuming it isn't too harmful) doesn't apply to something somebody made up recently to make a buck.
We look at a traditional practice and say, "Perhaps in a very primitive society it all made sense." But Scientology did not make sense in the 1950s. We cannot shrug and say, "This is the continuance of a tradition that made sense back in the 1950s, and has since grown to a cultural significance greater than the mere truth of falsity of the thing."
And all of that goes for Mormonism. It's recent and local origins do not make it less likely to be true, but it makes the idea of respecting it on par with respecting Scientology.
If somebody believes the garden of Eden was in Iraq that is passive acceptance of genuinely ancient tradition, with origins pre-dating even writing.
If somebody believes that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri (as Mitt Romney believes) that is weird for the sake of weird. It cannot be interpreted as ancient metaphor. I wasn't much less weird when first written than it is today... it was an aberration in its own time. It's not an explanation of the cosmic mystery of how Americans came to be. It is not the product of an era when nobody knew better.
It is just some stuff that a guy made up, not all that long ago.
It makes a difference.
Islam and Christianity and Judaism are deeply intertwined with great cultures informed by religious tradition. I don't have to believe to appreciate the art and philosophy and the good things some people did within a cultural tradition.
Take Islam... it isn't literally ancient but a thousand plus years is a lot. And over that time the culture informed by Islam did some stuff everybody respects. It was, in its day, in some ways a more sophisticated culture than Europe had. You don't have to believe that man shares the Earth with a race of Djinn to value things about Islamic culture.
The cultural tradition of Mormonism, on the other hand, doesn't have highlights like algebra. It has its short and sordid history. (I don't find Proposition 8 to be akin to algebra.)
What if your neighbor made up a new religion today and started wearing robes and telling people that World of Warcraft is real. Would you respect it because it is a religion? (Beyond the basic respect we have for whatever a person thinks, which is minimal.)
At some point there is an indistinct line, and for me Mormonism is on the Scientology side of the line.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,757 posts)But I think the real problem with the LDS church isn't even that it's weird and recently made-up, it's that they have a whole shitload of money and power, and their express intent is to make the United States a Mormon theocracy. That's where Mittens comes in.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)than the silly stuff made up less than 200 years ago, so it garners a bit more respect.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)2000 years for members and society to determine when the beliefs and actions go too far.
Cults obviously lack this history.
I had never really read much about Mormonism before, I guess I sort of equated it with Jehovah's Witnesses. I had no idea it bore so little resemblance to Christianity. Truth be told, Islam seems much more similar!
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)reappear on Earth aaaaany day now is pretty damn nutty if you stop to think about it.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)I can certainly believe some groovy guy named Jesus lived and had some pretty profound ideas about how to live. I can believe that he is the son of God, as we all would be. I can believe that he sacrificed himself to make a point about the strength of his beliefs. I can accept that as a decent thing to do. I'm open to the concept of a God. But the magical virgin, resurrection and return stuff? Too far.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)Christians and Muslims both share the same God, the God of the Jews.
The Mormons refer to this God and to Jesus in their literature but they do not believe in the singular divinity of the three-headed God of Judeo-Christian tradition.
Mormons believe that they (some of the males) will be gods themselves (in the afterlife), who rule over a gaggle of sister-wives, on their own planets.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)in that people are free to believe whatever they want, and its their own choice and freedom to do so. Do I think all of the religions are good and some aren't just plain loony? No, but humans are what they are, and I can accept this about people and what they want to believe. It's really none of my business in the final analysis.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)when a religion gets to the point of violence, then it is acceptable for the authorities to step in. I'm not saying these cults shouldn't be kept an eye on.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)My test: Does it brain wash people? Does it require law keeping ...including paying tithes? Does it subdue women? Does it take supreme authority over any and all understanding? Does it segregate? Does it believe it is the only true church? ect. If it does then I call it a cult and consider it to be mentally toxic and poisonous.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)...unless they want to impose their beliefs on others.
--imm
Syntara
(39 posts)The reason why I have a problem with what I term 'recent' religions is that, as in the case of Mormonism, the founders and the adherents have no problem making leaps in time to bring two or more diverse elements together to tell a story, for example.
Romney believes that The Second Coming will occur simultaneously in Israel and in Missouri. I get the Israel part, but I have problems with the Missouri part. I guess because Israel is ancient and Missouri is a rather recent invention. Why Missouri, I want to know? Jesus was most definitely associated with Israel, so that part makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how someone in the Mormon faith determined that Jesus is also related to Missouri.
Perhaps my problem is that I just don't know enough about Mormon doctrine, but on the surface it does seem a tad farcical to me.
nolabear
(41,987 posts)Period.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)in a sense anyway.
And I say that as someone who was raised in (and believed in for an embarrassing long time) the very young Jehovah's Witnesses religion.
I recently noted that the Rastafarians (a newborn religion) like Jehovah's Witnesses, discourage (forbid, in the case of JW's) blood transfusion.
rudycantfail
(300 posts)And being an atheist myself, and growing up Greek Orthodox, I find it funny that Mormonism and its bizarre beliefs is more acceptable in American political culture than to not believe in the supernatural at all.
d_r
(6,907 posts)And I see it on a personal level much the same way. It seems so much more obvious that mormonism was "invented" by a con man than it does the "ancient" (as you put it) religions. It seems like it should be easier for people to get that. On the other hand, for those born into it, they were raised from day one with this world view so it seems to them as being the reality of the world.
I have a harder time understanding the evangelicals making bed fellows with it, with all the admonitions to beware of false prophets that the preachers use to keep their flocks close. I don't think they really know anything about it. Otherwise it takes some real intellectual gymnastics.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)To a kid today 1830 might as well be 1380.
But since I favor no persecution of or discrimination against Mormons my relative lack of respect for that (fairly recent but real to folks who feel it) tradition isn't so weighty.
There is, of course, a larger American cultural tradition with cultish aspects roughly as olddevotion to a society based on African slavery.
"Heritage not hate."
And it is a heritage. Many people were born into it long after it was "acceptable" and accepted its traditions and that tradition gives meaning to thier sense of themselves and the place of their people in society. But fuck 'em.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)when evaluating the religion and its adherents.
Religion/Myth is a cultural universal found in every culture, in every time. Religions (if you believe them) or Myths (if you don't believe them) serve several purposes in society. They explain the unexplained, they provide rules to guide social life, and they oversee (legitimize) rites of passage in the lives of individuals and communities.
While a new faith, like the Mormon Church, can provide rules to live by and legitimize celebrations it was born in an age of enlightenment. We did not need a new faith to explain things.
Science was a known, available, and superior methodology for explaining the unexplained and older, established churches provided faith models for understanding the universe for those who distrusted science.
A new faith model for understanding simply was not and is not needed, especially one that is confusing and weird and doesn't clarify anything about the world.
This alone makes Mormons suspect. What is their real mission? To save or to shun?
Are they a business plan? Why do they insist that they are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition when neither Jews or Christians recognize them as such?
Since Romney's nomination, I have become more familiar with some of the LDS doctrine than I was earlier.
I still have many questions.
TlalocW
(15,386 posts)Especially after watching the video some people have posted about their secret practices, and I kind of got pissed off about it - moreso than usual.
Let me begin with saying that I was raised Christian; I nominally am still one, and I'm more likely to give them a pass - to a point because secondly, I'm an entertainer on the side - mostly balloon animals but also a healthy amount of magic - and I fall in with the Penn and Teller (not necessarily their politics) and James Randi (I think he's more liberal) subsection in that I hate people who use "magical thinking" to scam people - priests who claim statues of the Virgin Mary cry, faith-healers, palm readers, people who talk to the dead, etc. are all shitstains on humanity. Most of them never make it to the big time, but some do.
And it really pisses me off that this asshole, Joseph Smith, was able to make up this story about golden plates and looking in a hat at some stones to write a "holy" book and create a new "religion." It's like Creed on, "The Office," said, "I've been involved in a number of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower. But make more money as a leader." And I'm sure Smith had no idea how far it would go, although he was going to milk it for all it was worth obviously. And now, it's an incredibly rich and powerful (and unfortunately becoming more respectful) church filled either with people who believe all these crazy things about Kobold, magic underwear, etc. combined with another belief that if they want all that stuff to keep working for them, they HAVE TO tithe, and either the leaders are as delusional as the laity, or the leaders are all just modern Joseph Smiths and know they've got a good thing going on - money, prestige, and power - and are going to continue the scam. I'm not sure which is worse.
So I agree with you about the line. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Sikh, etc. I have no problem holding office for the most part (I of course would prefer more liberal members of the religion who can separate their religion from their secular duty), but I have to say - with apologies to Harry Reid - wouldn't want a Mormon or Scientologist in charge of a bake sale.
TlalocW
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Same is true for religions. Just because a group of people declare their beliefs to be a "religion" doesn't mean they command my respect. I would need to know more - a lot more. Having secret ceremonies doesn't expactly help in that regard.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Likewise, the Cain Doctrine is abhorrent.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)It is not often mentioned, but it is key to the understanding of the matter.
"Truth, in religion, is the opinion which has survived."