What is the Book of Mormon's religious agenda.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Imagine a parent with a child who has cancer. Imagine if somehow this parent were able to give themselves cancer, so that they could experience, literally, all the things that their child is experiencing. Then the parent could "succour" their child, comfort them, and act as a guide showing them how to overcome this horrible trial. This is where Christ comes in. His having been tortured is irrelevant as far as the actual act of the atonement is concerned. Two other guys were on crosses right next to him, they suffered just the same. The great miracle that Christ performed was a kind of acquisition of knowledge. A kind of comprehensive knowledge of the human condition and all the possible temptations and hardships that come with it. Holy Ghost is medium through which that knowledge is transferred to us. This is why Book of Mormon has such a strong emphasis on living by the spirit.

This is the doctrine of incarnation, not the doctrine of atonement, and except for the reference to the Book of Mormon it could have been written by any nineteenth-century Protestant.

At the end of the day, the Book of Mormon is a pretty Protestant book—especially in its understanding of atonement. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But it shoots holes in the theory that the Book of Mormon's religious agenda is to introduce a new theology of atonement. Now, its agenda could be to simply drive home the standard Protestant theory in compelling narrative and simple language, but then that leaves a lot of other, more interesting stuff in the Book of Mormon unaccounted for.

[_Chap]

Imagine a parent with a child who has cancer. Imagine if somehow this parent were able to give themselves cancer, so that they could experience, literally, all the things that their child is experiencing. Then the parent could "succour" their child, comfort them, and act as a guide showing them how to overcome this horrible trial. This is where Christ comes in. His having been tortured is irrelevant as far as the actual act of the atonement is concerned. Two other guys were on crosses right next to him, they suffered just the same. The great miracle that Christ performed was a kind of acquisition of knowledge. A kind of comprehensive knowledge of the human condition and all the possible temptations and hardships that come with it. Holy Ghost is medium through which that knowledge is transferred to us. This is why Book of Mormon has such a strong emphasis on living by the spirit.

This is the doctrine of incarnation, not the doctrine of atonement, and except for the reference to the Book of Mormon it could have been written by any nineteenth-century Protestant.

At the end of the day, the Book of Mormon is a pretty Protestant book—especially in its understanding of atonement. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But it shoots holes in the theory that the Book of Mormon's religious agenda is to introduce a new theology of atonement. Now, its agenda could be to simply drive home the standard Protestant theory in compelling narrative and simple language, but then that leaves a lot of other, more interesting stuff in the Book of Mormon unaccounted for.

Water Dog is an intelligent guy, who has been brought up to think that the Book of Mormon is something really special. Facing up to the fact that its theology, such as it is, is of its (early 19th C.) time and no more seems to be next to impossible for him. If you block one rabbit hole, he will try another.

Above I pointed to the rather ordinary protestant views on the Atonement set out on the church's own website, backed up by citations from the Book of Mormon that were, to put it mildly, not very out of the ordinary. Did he ever refer to that post? Some things just don't compute, I suppose ...

[_Chap]

... The Book of Mormon does not use the language that I am, and describes things in a more protestant way, which I admit, but it's different. It does not fit the protestant philosophy but diverges from it substantially. ...

Please stop asserting such claims without documenting them.

Does the explanation of the Atonement set out on the Church's web site 'diverge ... substantially [from protestantism]'?

Atonement of Jesus Christ

Well, does it? If not, what follows?

[_fetchface]

Or, maybe I'm full of crap and just fooling myself. If we're to talk about objective morality though, as we are on the other thread, what is the basis for it if not a spiritual awareness of this natural law? If there is no means of discerning the existence of a objective truth, then we can no basis for saying it exists at all. Even just saying we "think" it might exist to some degree of probability. There are things which I feel I know, but I truly just don't know how to describe with words, because it's a spiritual knowledge. So that I'm still clear though, this is not me arguing that I "just know" the Book of Mormon is true, regardless of all the issues, because I can feel it in my gut or some crap. This isn't what I'm saying. I think that truth, natural truth, will also be logical and even scientifically observable. But also, just because we haven't observed something yet doesn't mean we won't later... on all fronts we must acknowledge our limitations. And certainly when it comes to spirituality, there are a LOT of limitations. What is particularly unique about the "Mormon" viewpoint though is that truth is perceived as discoverable. And something isn't true because any man says so. It doesn't matter at all what is even in the scriptures, because that's all men. At the very core, truth comes from one and only one place - God - or through spirituality.

As far as objective morality goes, here is my basis. Normal humans feel empathy. That is an objective fact. Empathy leads to moral perceptions. When it gets down to it, there is quite a bit of subjectivity to how and when humans feel empathy and what moral principles are more important when they are in competition. I'm okay with that. I'm also okay with stating that genocide or slavery are objectively morally wrong, because empathy cries out against those actions.

What I'm not okay with is people turning over their moral reasoning to someone else and worshipping obedience. That's how we get things like the Holocaust or the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Your perception of how truth is handed down to men seems significantly different to me than what the church leaders teach (follow the prophet at all times). Are you an active "TBM"?

[_fetchface]

Is it your thesis that historical humans were abnormal and did not "feel" empathy? If not, then how do you explain the changes in morality? If they were just as empathetic as you, then on what basis do you decide that your morals are good and theirs were bad? Moreover, what's empathy? What is this thing called empathy that anybody should subject themselves to it?

No, humans have a great ability to get together in a group and dehumanize people outside their group. This has the effect of suppressing empathy for people in the "out group". It is something that we have to be constantly watching out for because humans do it all the time. The us vs "the world" rhetoric of the church is quite pernicious in my opinion. There are many loving and otherwise good LDS parents who behave quite horribly to children who are "under the power of Satan", for example. Does that make sense how the dehumanization of others leads to suppression of empathy? The Canaanites were idol worshippers, the Jews killed Christ, the exmormons are under the influence of Satan, etc.

If suppression of empathy is a subject you are interested in, I recommend reading The Nazi Doctors by Robert Jay Lifton.

As far as your question, "what is empathy?" Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

I'm not sure why you are asking that.

[_Chap]

Water Dog is an intelligent guy, who has been brought up to think that the Book of Mormon is something really special. Facing up to the fact that its theology, such as it is, is of its (early 19th C.) time and no more seems to be next to impossible for him. If you block one rabbit hole, he will try another...Above I pointed to the rather ordinary protestant views on the Atonement set out on the church's own website, backed up by citations from the Book of Mormon that were, to put it mildly, not very out of the ordinary. Did he ever refer to that post? Some things just don't compute, I suppose ...

You might be right, maybe I am injecting myself into it. If I want to scripturally support my philosophy though I find myself going to the Book of Mormon for support, not the Bible. Not that there isn't any support in the Bible, but the Book of Mormon just does a much better job.

Have you considered that this may be because you are deeply, but perhaps also partly unconsciously, soaked with the preoccupations and assumptions of protestant Christianity? And so was/were the 19th century writer/writers who created the Book of Mormon?

That naturally makes the Book of Mormon a much more congenial book for you in comparison with either the Old or New Testaments, to whom many of those preoccupations and assumptions are pretty alien.

In case you didn't see my other post about the First Presidency Message, I'm not super impressed with TSCC these days. That the church would market a more mainstream, Protestant-style view of the atonement is expected. The church distances itself from a lot of stuff and likes to put on whatever "it" considers the most marketable image.

Quite sincerely, I sympathize with your predicament. There seems to be a huge gap between what the CoJCoLDS teaches nowadays and what Joseph Smith taught.

[_mentalgymnast]

There seems to be a huge gap between what the CoJCoLDS teaches nowadays and what Joseph Smith taught.

Let's imagine for a moment that you were/are able to hop in a time machine and travel back to Joseph's day and heard/hear the gospel as Joseph Smith taught it...minus, let's say the polygamy stuff ...can you see yourself as having been a convert? A follower of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught through the restoration? If so, what is it that gets in the way today? Besides polygamy. Or the perceived absence of revelation. DNA. Book of Mormon anachronisms. Or the micro managed earrings. Or Brigham Young's teachings concerning Adam/God and Blood Atonement. Or the boundary maintenance. Or Prop. 8. Etc., etc.

Is it a lot of this other "stuff" that filters your perception of the original pure "product" that, as you say, Joseph taught? Would it have been better for you and make any difference in your salvific journey to have been taught the gospel back in 1830?

Regards,
MG

[_CaliforniaKid]

To comment quickly on the empathy issue:

Empathy is an evolutionary shortcut to cooperative behavior. Cooperation is generally more productive and adaptive, overall, than non-cooperation, so evolution has made most of us empathizers and attached emotional rewards to empathetic behavior. But on the other hand, empathy doesn't increase reproductive fitness in every situation, so evolution has also given us the "fight or flight" response and attached emotional rewards to things like anger and vengeance.

I guess what I'm saying is that empathy isn't an end in itself. It's an emotional response that helps produce certain kinds of adaptive behavior. The adaptive behavior, in turn, makes us all happier and more productive, and—more importantly from an evolutionary standpoint—increases our reproductive fitness. If you find yourself empathizing with people, you should embrace that feeling not just because empathy is natural, but rather because empathy is emotionally rewarding in the short term and it tends to improve long-term quality of life.

So empathy is a means to an end. One reason it's important to remember this is that not everyone is an empathizer. Some people are sociopaths or psychopaths who almost entirely lack the empathy response. So telling people to rely on their moral instincts is not foolproof. Religion can be good for sociopaths because it gives them logical reasons to behave morally when emotional reasons are lacking. Understanding the evolutionary function of empathy can do the same. It may also help normal empathizers sort out when empathy is appropriate and when o go with an anger response. If you make empathy an end in itself, you may end up a murdered pacifist or a victim of serial abuse.

[_Calculus Crusader]

To comment quickly on the empathy issue:

Empathy is an evolutionary shortcut to cooperative behavior. Cooperation is generally more productive and adaptive, overall, than non-cooperation, so evolution has made most of us empathizers and attached emotional rewards to empathetic behavior. But on the other hand, empathy doesn't increase reproductive fitness in every situation, so evolution has also given us the "fight or flight" response and attached emotional rewards to things like anger and vengeance.

I guess what I'm saying is that empathy isn't an end in itself. It's an emotional response that helps produce certain kinds of adaptive behavior. The adaptive behavior, in turn, makes us all happier and more productive, and—more importantly from an evolutionary standpoint—increases our reproductive fitness. If you find yourself empathizing with people, you should embrace that feeling not just because empathy is natural, but rather because empathy is emotionally rewarding in the short term and it tends to improve long-term quality of life.

So empathy is a means to an end. One reason it's important to remember this is that not everyone is an empathizer. Some people are sociopaths or psychopaths who almost entirely lack the empathy response. So telling people to rely on their moral instincts is not foolproof. Religion can be good for sociopaths because it gives them logical reasons to behave morally when emotional reasons are lacking. Understanding the evolutionary function of empathy can do the same. It may also help normal empathizers sort out when empathy is appropriate and when o go with an anger response. If you make empathy an end in itself, you may end up a murdered pacifist or a victim of serial abuse.

That is a quaint just-so story.

[_moksha]

If you make empathy an end in itself, you may end up a murdered pacifist or a victim of serial abuse.

Ha! I can more readily empathize with a victim of self abuse.