Richard Dawkins On Mormons.

[_marg]

So Trevor how does a moderate's view in the LDS church differ to a fundamentalist's view in the LDS church?

Do moderates for example speak out about the Bible's stories of the miraculous such as Jesus dying coming back to life is not to be taken literally? What parts in the Bible do moderate Mormons not take literally and are they able to be openly talk about his?And how about the Book of Mormon are all those stories within including Jesus coming to America not to be taken literally. Is it openly acceptable that a Mormon within the church view the Book of Mormon as completely fictional. By what method does a Mormon determine what should and what should not be taken literally within both Bible and Book of Mormon?

[_Trevor]

So Trevor how does a moderate's view in the LDS church differ to a fundamentalist's view in the LDS church?

Have you spent so little time on these boards that you have no clue? Do I really have to spell it out for you?

[_beastie]

This is fairly easy to answer. It is technology that gives fundamentalists a disproportionately large profile. Technology gives them the weapons to spread propaganda and cause dramatic instances of destruction. Islamic fundamentalism is less the child of Islam than it is the child of the failed policies of Western nations in the Middle East.

Of course, we could have a large Islamic empire to deal with. Thankfully, the successes of the West have reduced Islamic imperialism to the point where it is mostly the Fundamentalists who openly advertize their imperialist political agenda. Moderation is wildly successful. Pointing to the remnants in their death throes as evidence of the failure of moderates is, imho, skewed.

Very good points, Trevor. But is fundamentalism truly in its death throes or are the numbers increasing? I remember a couple of decades ago some were prophesying that with the increase in scientific knowledge, that fundamentalist religions would all but disappear. But what really happened was that they grew. I think they grew because of increasing uncertainty and insecurity in the world, due to economic pressures and other global fears. I seem to recall hearing that it's really moderate religions that are struggling.

[_marg]

So Trevor how does a moderate's view in the LDS church differ to a fundamentalist's view in the LDS church?

Have you spent so little time on these boards that you have no clue? Do I really have to spell it out for you?

I've added more to my post, please take a look.

[_Trevor]

Very good points, Trevor. But is fundamentalism truly in their death throes or are the numbers increasing? I remember a couple of decades ago some were prophesying that with the increase in scientific knowledge, that fundamentalist religions would all but disappear. But what really happened was that they grew. I think they grew because of increasing uncertainty and insecurity in the world, due to economic pressures and other global fears. I seem to recall hearing that it's really moderate religions that are struggling.

You are right that the Mainline Protestant faiths have declined. I will get back to you on this after I have given my three-year-old the attention he deserves today.

[_Gadianton]

It's also divisive to equate religion with looking for "meaning". Well, her comments weren't narrowly worded enough to exclusively equate religion with meaning but it leaves that as a strong impression. Creating religion is often a matter of opportunism that exploits people looking for "meaning". Even more cynical though I think there is some truth to it, "meaning" itself can be a shallow matter of self-preservation or maintaining the status quo favorably to ones own needs. As an extreme example, some of us remember the humorous antics of JSkains a few years back when he went through this dramatic, attention-seeking online crisis over his mortality and demanded that there be a God in order to ensure he'd live forever because he was so terrified of death. Is this kind of "defense-mechanism" search for meaning what Armstrong has in mind as important for humanity? To the extent that As a less extreme example, consider DCP's arguments on Z where on the one hand, there is no (objective) meaning for atheists because everything reduces to their own "personal tastes and preferences" but within the same post or thread, argues there is no meaning because there is no personal continuance after death -- what does it all matter if we're going to die? More than a little self-contradictory. And what about others, such as my friend Mikwut who really search deeply and get intellectual when looking for some kind of theistic meaning? Well, the search is often informed as much by atheists as it is theists, Nietzsche etc.. For the typical non-intellectual worshiper, when is the person finding meaning in tradition, and at what point is the person just burrying her head in the sand? Also, I think it would be tough to make a case -- without loading the definition of "meaning" first -- that the "four horsemen" here, even if they are being jerks, aren't interested in finding "meaning". It seems to me they are as obsessed with it as anyone could be.

[_marg]

that the "four horsemen" here, even if they are being jerks, aren't interested in finding "meaning"

Gad, unless you truly think they are jerks and if you do it would be great if you gave your reasons, but otherwise why humor those who voice such put down quips, who typically have not read their work or understand their viewpoints.

[_EAllusion]

It's important to remember that fundamentalism is primarily characterized by a pushback to liberalizing forces within its religion. Fundamentalists despise people like Karen Armstrong as much if not more than they do people like Dawkins. If the liberals are guilty of anything, it's not doing enough to stifle fundamentalist attempts to insinuate itself into culture. In America, conservative Christianity exploded over the past quarter century while more liberal approaches saw their numbers decline in part because of their apathy. But they are enemies, so one shouldn't expect a fundamentalists to be open to a "many paths to God" person any more than they would an atheist. The "moderates" are a different matter, depending on what one means by moderate.

[_marg]

Trevor you seem to be saying that you are a Mormon moderate and that whatever you are doing, you are making changes or working towards changes within the church.


What changes are you working towards? What sorts of things are you attempting to change?

I believe I see things similarly to the New Atheists that the core problem stems from the so called sacred texts and ultimately those promote a God belief and various stories within all work to encourage superstitious thinking, discourage science and rational thought. The Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon do not promote peace, good ethics, rational thinking but rather encourage an "us versus them" mentality with "them" being sinful or evil, and of course encourage superstitious thinking. So I fail to see how you think your moderate views are going to change anything as long as these sacred texts are still revered and treated as true, and sacred.

[_EAllusion]

If you were to put LDS belief on a continuum, the people that would qualify as moderates within that faith are hardcore fundamentalists when compared against the backdrop of mainline protestantism. It's important when one says "moderate" that we know the context. If you're a Mormon, accepting a local Noahic flood is a pretty liberal thing to do. If you're an Episcopalian, that's an ad hoc literalist view of a religiously significant myth that almost certainly did not happen.