Secularists have nothing better to offer

[drumdude]

Some disaffected members of the Church claim to have found it oppressive, to have been injured by it. I don’t doubt that bad things happen. We are, after all, a community composed of fallible and imperfect humans. I don’t discount their stories — though, sometimes, I also marvel at how utterly foreign to my experience in the Church and with the Saints the narratives are that a few of them tell. I mourn for them. I would like to help them, if I could. I wish them well. I wish they would return.

Overwhelmingly, though, I consider it one of the greatest blessings of my life to be a part of the community of the Latter-day Saints.

I definitely don’t understand the hostile secular critics who want to detach believers from their faith, and, if possible, to pull the Church from its foundations. I think, in this context, of the words of the high priest Giddonah to the anti-Christ Korihor in Alma 30:22. Giddonah seeks to know why Korihor wants to destroy the faith of the ancient Nephite saints, and “to interrupt their rejoicings.”

I’m curious about the same question. Do the secularists have anything better to offer?

If they do, I haven’t seen it.

I’m a believer. I’m convinced that the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, incredible as they certainly seem to many, are actually true. But even if they turned out to be false, even if our lives were merely a flickering candle surrounded by an eternity of pointless darkness and soon to be extinguished by it, the Latter-day Saint way of life, lived in the company of the Saints, is a very good place to be.

I agree with Dan. There’s no better country club for middle aged heterosexual white men who own their own home in a state which is 90% white.

[IHAQ]

I suppose it depends on what you think "better" looks like. For me...

A community where participation level and status isn't dependant on gender, would be better.
A community where marital status doesn't form the basis for inclusion or segregation, would be better.
A community where unrelated adult males don't have perceived authority to take minors into a room by themselves to discuss intimate matters of a sexual nature, would be better.
A community where charitable donations weren't hoarded unnecessarily, would be better.
A community that told the truth about itself and had transparent financial dealings with its members, would be better.
A community that was prepared to apologise for past mistakes, would be better.
A community that didn't promote racist teachings, would be better.

That's off the top of my head.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Anything > singing 19th century folk music in a carpet covered baby vomit smelling utilitarian chapel

Anything > conducting soulless corporate business meetings discussing “doctrinal” pablum

Anything > handing over 10% to a hundred billion dollar umbrella corporation to attend “Genesis film night” at a temple dressed as a baker doing makework

Anything > listening to lipsmacking inbreds rehash a thousand plagiarized talks at gencon

Anything > not knowing if there are child rapists, pederasts, and abusers in your building near your children

Anything good about the “church” isn’t unique, and anything unique about the “church” isn’t good. It’s an awful institution and the Mopologists are a big QED.

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

My take would be, if ever I could have a decent conversation with Dan again, its all perspective. How can someone outside of a position tell another an alternative if that one inside is convinced they already have the best? What is an alternative to what is perceived as the best? And people are only convinced if an interlocuter is able to play by their rules--as arbitrary as our individual rules tend to be. That makes it a very difficult conversation, I think. I recall, years back, a GA of sorts (can't remember his exact position in the company that is the Church, nor his name) basically said (summarizing) 'miracles happen all the time. Each time someone comes into this Church its a miracle. If you really stop and think from a convert's perspective its near impossible to be converted. Thus God.' He's right on the one hand...it seems near impossible for most people. But that's why most do not convert, nor give it the time of day. But its simply bound to happen that some people will bite, and some fewer of them will see it through to baptism and beyond. That's simply our world, though. That's not God. That's not miracle. That's nothing more than reality, probability, and predictability...mundanity.

We may want to say being a rational person is best. But to those who are convinced on grounds other than the tools of rationality there is little convincing. You must first get them to be rational people, or grow a desire to be. That's a taller order than it sounds at first glance. We simply happen to be prone to irrationality. Even as we set a goal of rationality, we fail all too often. Its way too easy and convenient to move on a hunch rather than plan things out, and I say that is true even for meticulous planners. Additionally we can be wholly rational, or as close as we can be, in one area and as the great compartmentalizers we are, and be nearly as wholly irrational in any other area of our lives. This is the type of thing that is at the heart of the failure of Dan's Mormon Scholars testify campaign (did that die? I forgot all about it until this moment). Anyone can be a rather rational scientist and simultaneously believe our bodies have spirits inside them that will continue on after we die, with no reason except religious hope to believe such. Some may say there's nothing irrational about believing, often quite dogmatically, something that grows increasingly unlikely as the days move on. But I'd disagree. That's basically what being irrational is. If the proposition of your religion (given any one of them) is unlikely, then its only rational to accept its unlikely and thus not believe it. That doesn't mean you say without a doubt that belief is impossible, particularly philosophically, no...it means you suspend belief until you find good reason to go back to it. But you see, to believe in religion is to play by different rules. And that'd be the point. How to convince those who are simply playing by different rules that there is an alternative? I'm not saying it's impossible...it happens to be difficult.

In KevinSim's thread asking for an alternative I had said, "Yes, if you think about it’s a pretty odd question, almost like—“what’s the alternative to believing these unreasonable things?”

I mean….not believing them?"

What more can be expected? Some people simply won't be convinced that they are accepting unreasonable things if they think they are assenting to reasonable things. If one is convinced there is a God, he is Mormon (meaning is the author of Mormon teaching and practice), there is no alternative. To that mindset of Dan's, one who believes without doubt that God is there and is Mormon, there is no alternative. The question then is posed rhetorically only. And of course, what's the alternative to Dan's religion? Being rational. Doing so may leave one out of the Mormon social club, and may mean one has to drop the belief that there is a God and one might be crowned as gods for eternity. I mean I wonder what kinda narcissism it takes to want that anyway, but being, no matter, rational means you lose that. One may say, as many atheists have, but you gain a perspective that is rational. You may not have hope for an eternal salvation some day, but you get to live life in a real world and emphasize the importance of what we have rather than hope for things that seem nothing more than make believe. I don't know...I guess its the choice we have.

[Gadianton]

Anything > singing 19th century folk music in a carpet covered baby vomit smelling utilitarian chapel

Anything > conducting soulless corporate business meetings discussing “doctrinal” pablum

Anything > handing over 10% to a hundred billion dollar umbrella corporation to attend “Genesis film night” at a temple dressed as a baker doing makework

Anything > listening to lipsmacking inbreds rehash a thousand plagiarized talks at gencon

Anything > not knowing if there are child rapists, pederasts, and abusers in your building near your children

Anything good about the “church” isn’t unique, and anything unique about the “church” isn’t good. It’s an awful institution and the Mopologists are a big QED.

- Doc

Great points Doc Cam. For those whose lives are fatally driven by the grandeur of LDS community, there is a huge vested interest in sweeping any negative experiences of others under the rug so as to not ruin it for you.

[Dr Moore]

"Better" in this context is empirically meaningless. Like, "if someone has a better tasting pickle, I haven't found it." Careful semantics designed to say nothing testable. As usual.

What interests me lately is how "effective" Mormonism is at producing results that make the world a better place.

So far, what I see in the data is that Mormonism is primarily committed to creating more Mormonism. Making the world a better place sometimes comes up, but is mostly marketing whereas the underlying data is relatively unimpressive.

[drumdude]

"Better" in this context is empirically meaningless. Like, "if someone has a better tasting pickle, I haven't found it." Careful semantics designed to say nothing testable. As usual.

What interests me lately is how "effective" Mormonism is at producing results that make the world a better place.

So far, what I see in the data is that Mormonism is primarily committed to creating more Mormonism. Making the world a better place sometimes comes up, but is mostly marketing whereas the underlying data is relatively unimpressive.

Mormonism could have spent a few billion dollars to resolve the Scouts sex abuse cases, and left the Scout program with proper sexual abuse training to continue providing children with quality youth programs.

Instead they offered 250 million in exchange for blanket immunity for all sex abuse cases, scouting related or otherwise. When this was objected for being a ridiculous offer, Mormonism abandoned scouting entirely. And put essentially nothing in its place. Children past, present, and future be damned.

Mormonism seems to care most deeply about hoarding and protecting their investment account balances.

[Doctor Steuss]

Some disaffected members of the Church claim to have found it oppressive, to have been injured by it. I don’t doubt that bad things happen. We are, after all, a community composed of fallible and imperfect humans. I don’t discount their stories — though, sometimes, I also marvel at how utterly foreign to my experience in the Church and with the Saints the narratives are that a few of them tell. I mourn for them. I would like to help them, if I could. I wish them well. I wish they would return.

Overwhelmingly, though, I consider it one of the greatest blessings of my life to be a part of the community of the Latter-day Saints.

If only the post had ended here.

[Moksha]

Why does Xenu persist in wanting to drop atomic bombs on volcanos?

We at Scientology have something better to offer. Send a message to Shades@Scientology.com and we can send a couple of young missionaries to show you how to cleanse your system of Xenu attracting thetans.

[Kishkumen]

Maybe the problem starts with having a sales pitch. Nothing better to offer? What are you trying to sell me? If you need to sell me, maybe I should think twice about what you are peddling.

Perhaps the great advantage of secularism is that it isn’t selling anything at all. And it isn’t asking for anything either. No tithing, no meetings, no disappointments about claims that turn out not to be true, after all.

Bottom line: I don’t get the attempt to compare “secularists” with a particular church group. Seems to me the comparison really doesn’t work. On the one hand we have people who do not make extravagant claims and promises and offer nothing in return for their message regarding the wisdom of using the scientific method and following the evidence. On the other hand, we have organizations promising the universe, demanding your money lest you lose the wonderful opportunity of obtaining it all at some unspecified future time, and then apparently failing to make good on most of their biggest claims.

Seen in that light, things don’t look too good for the churches. Sure, “secularists” don’t offer crazy amazing stuff, and that is one thing that makes it a lot easier to believe them. That and the fact that they aren’t constantly asking for 10% of your money and lots of volunteer grunt work.