Are there any LDS humanist left?

[_karl61]

Those who do not learn from history will just repeat it. Everything seems to repeat itself. What happened five hundred years ago gets to be repeated thousands of miles a way and five centuries later.


From the book AN INTRODUCTION TO MENNONITE HISTORY BY CORNELIUS J. DYCK


Humanism was the life and spirit of the Renaissance, the fourteenth and fifteenth-century recovery of the ancient culture of Greece and Rome. Humanism was this worldly calling on people to shift their gaze from heaven to the earth around them. It rejected many of the irrational superstitions and customs of the age. It expressed itself in a flowering of arts and sciences - the poetry of Dante (d. 1321) and Petrarch (d.1374), the sculpture of Donatello (d.1466), the architecture of Alberti (d.1471), the painting of da Vinci (d.1519) and Michelangelo (d.1564) and multitude of other creative masters. Humanism was inspired by a new spirit of freedom and inquiry.

The humanist of north of the Alps generally had a stronger religious concern than those in Italy, giving themselves more to biblical studies than to classical sources. As Christian humanist they were also concerned with the problems of the church, though they did not usually participate in action programs of reform. Their tools were a pen, a critical intellect satire, humor and thorough scholarship. Humanist circles cold be found in most of the major universities and cities; they were respected, hated, feared, and loved. In these circles and through out Europe, no one was more respected than Desiderius Erasmus (d. 1536) the “prince of humanist”. As a young man Luther almost worshiped Erasmus, writing to him “ Where is he in who Erasmus does not control the inner thoughts, does not teach, does not rule…..?” But by 1524 he called him a babbler and a skeptic and felt he was undercutting the Reformation.

Erasmus and Luther had many things in common. Both deplored the corruption of the clergy and the papacy; both emphasized the central place Scripture should have in the life of the Church; taught the importance of Christ for the believer. Never less, the two men were very different. Erasmus was scholarly and polite; Luther could be vulgar and dogmatic. Luther came to be a reformer because of his personal search for faith. Erasmus had more of a detached scholars’ interest in Reformation issues. There were also basic differences in understanding the faith. Luther saw salvation primarily as grace, Erasmus primarily as imitating Christ though both stressed the importance of faith. Luther held all people to be miserable sinners, while Erasmus, together with all humanist, stressed their fundamental goodness. Luther might be described as crying, “Back to the Bible.” while Erasmus might have asked, “What is the Bible?”

In all of this Erasmus represented the best in humanist. The reformation would not have been possible without the humanist’ recovery of the Scriptures and biblical scholarship. Their sharp pens goaded the church to act where actions of the reformers often caused a reaction. The humanist added spiritual dept to the church by stressing the inward and personal dimension of faith, where the reformers were often forced to quarrel over doctrine or external church issues. Yet all of the major reformers had a humanist education and were scholars in their own right. Luther wrote much more than Erasmus , but at a given point each of the reformers became deeply and personally involved in the life and problems of the church.

[_bcspace]

Those who do not learn from history will just repeat it. Everything seems to repeat itself. What happened five hundred years ago gets to be repeated thousands of miles a way and five centuries later.

Seems to me that those who rely on human rationality will always be so doomed.

[_karl61]

is medicine human rationality?

[_Yong Xi]

Those who do not learn from history will just repeat it. Everything seems to repeat itself. What happened five hundred years ago gets to be repeated thousands of miles a way and five centuries later.

Seems to me that those who rely on human rationality will always be so doomed.

What happens to those who rely on God, even if God is man-made? Is reliance on a man-made God superior to reliance on human rationality? Is man better off believing in God, regardless of God's existence?

[_why me]

Humanism is believing that the human being is basically good and not evil. It is also depended on social environment, reason and intelligience. Many of the great philosophers were humanist in orientation. And there are also religious humanists who not just rely on reason and intelligience but also on the teachings of Christ.

Thus, Mormons can be humanists if they wish to be. I would hope that Mormons would become humanistic and see the social aspects of the cross, as a piece of that cross runs horizontally and not just vertically.

[_Mercury]

Those who do not learn from history will just repeat it. Everything seems to repeat itself. What happened five hundred years ago gets to be repeated thousands of miles a way and five centuries later.

Seems to me that those who rely on human rationality will always be so doomed.

Religion is created by humans. You follow scripture written by humans. There is no other source for this other than humans.

What other rationality IS there besides "human rationality"?

[_Some Schmo]

What other rationality IS there besides "human rationality"?

Well, there's always "ir-rationality"... (ie. religion/superstition/faith)