Richard Dawkins On Mormons.

[_marg]

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.

My impression is that while there may be many Mormons who don't take the Book of Mormon literally, or much of the Bible literally they do not speak openly about this within church circles because it would not be tolerated. I am still uncertain what Trevor means by a Mormon moderate. I suppose he thinks of things such as polygamy in which it is okay to some extent to question whether it is a doctrine of God, because as I've noticed when Liz argues against Gaz she is able to find scripture to do so. So as long as one is able to use scripture or argue by interpreting scripture in a different way, then a Mormon can openly speak out against some Mormon doctrine.

But I wonder how far Trevor has in mind a Mormon moderate is able to go. Can they speak out against a Jesus literally go to America, or even a Jesus literally dying for mankind's sins and coming back to life? I'm really confused how he thinks moderate Mormons are changing things and how that's going to make a difference to the big picture of religion globally and/or into the future being a benefit as opposed to a cost to mankind.

[_Jason Bourne]

Do [Mormon} 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?

No. If they believe this they must remain silent. They might chat with friends or family or others about it but they will never speak out in a Church setting and most would never be open about it because to do so means potential they could be ostracized and possibly even face Church discipline.

What parts in the Bible do moderate Mormons not take literally

It could vary. I don't take the creation story literally nor the flood for example.

and are they able to be openly talk about his?

Mostly no. But there may be some wiggle room on some of the Bile like what I mentioned above. But the core doctrine and stories no. If they believe this they must remain silent. They might chat with friends or family or others about it but they will never speak out in a Church setting and most would never be open about it because to do so means potential they could be ostracized and possibly even face Church discipline.

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.

No. If they believe this they must remain silent. They might chat with friends or family or others about it but they will never speak out in a Church setting and most would never be open about it because to do so means potential they could be ostracized and possibly even face Church discipline.

By what method does a Mormon determine what should and what should not be taken literally within both Bible and Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon is to be taken literally.

[_JohnStuartMill]

[I agree in broad strokes with what Armstrong says. Humans, as a species, seek meaning in their lives. I am not willing, however, to take the next large leap to conclude that humans are Homo religiosus. Religion emerged eons ago when humans had no means at their disposal to explain natural phenomena, or really any phenomena for that matter. In these cases, it seems to me that the default is reliance on superstition (read God) to fill the gaps. God, in other words, is the default gap filler.

Religion isn't simply about God, or simply about explaining the unexplained. You bring a very modern view of religion to the table here. If you had read Armstrong in full, then you would perhaps understand that your representation of God and religion is pretty well accounted for in all of its historically contingent glory.

As for the rest of what you wrote, religion and theism are not synonymous. One can have a religion that is not theistic, and one does not have to ascribe to a religion to believe in a God. Where Europe is concerned, it may be that it will be swallowed up by Islam before its atheism ever overtakes the rest of the world. As far as I can tell, atheists reproduce at a much lower rate than Muslims.

And Dawkins has no problem with secular religion. He says that explicitly in his book. I had a chat with Dennett a few weeks ago, and he, too, was pretty adamant about the need for a secular religion of sorts.

[_Ray A]

I interrupt this debate for a commercial break: Dawkins' latest book (released September last) The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is great reading. I recently only just fully got into it but should be finished by the end of the week. in my opinion he achieves what he set out to do, which he didn't do in books like Climbing Mount Improbable, and that is explain evolution. I was already impressed with CMI (which was in many parts difficult reading), but this one is hard to put down.

I've already read a few negative critical reviews attempting to haul Dawkins through the coals, but this is a book you can't take on the say-so of any reviewer, even for the experts.

I suppose it will be different for TBMs, who will be awating a forthcoming review in the FROB, or some such, by the "leading lights" of Kolobian junk science.

[_marg]

Regarding Dawkins' recent book, there is a talk he gives on www.fora.tv talking about it with a Q & A afterwards which is interesting,,it's a little over an hour in time.

[_Trevor]

And Dawkins has no problem with secular religion. He says that explicitly in his book. I had a chat with Dennett a few weeks ago, and he, too, was pretty adamant about the need for a secular religion of sorts.

That's cool that you had a chat with Dennett. He is my personal favorite of the group, although there isn't a single one of them that I don't like on some level. I don't think that a non-theistic religion and a secular religion are necessarily the same thing. Having said that, I have no problem with a secular religion. It would be interesting to see how that would work out, and whether it would actually live up to the hopes of secularists.

[_Trevor]

Is this kind of "defense-mechanism" search for meaning what Armstrong has in mind as important for humanity?

Here's a thought, Gad. You can read her latest book and discover what she means by that. Novel idea, I know, but I know it works from personal experience.

[_Trevor]

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.

No, to be perfectly frank, I would not describe myself today as a Mormon moderate. I would describe John Dehlin as a Mormon moderate. Jason Bourne too, although perhaps less so than John. Often, however, I do take the the perspective of Mormon moderate when I am arguing with apologists like Pahoran and Schryver. It definitely describes where I was at when I was posting on FAIR and ZLMB. I would, however, still hope that Mormonism would go more moderate in a number of ways. So I am a cultural Mormon who would like to see it be more moderate. You are right, though, to see me as viewing today's Mormonism as much more moderate than in the past.

[_Trevor]

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.

It is hard to say. Interestingly, going into the '08 election, journalists were noting that the Religious Right had moderated in interesting ways, with many adding traditionally liberal concerns like environmentalism to their political views. I was taken somewhat aback by this, and it showed me that these movements are not monolithic and that they are more amenable to moderation in interesting ways than one might think.

[_huckelberry]

Huck,

I'm not talking about the general moderate membership - I'm talking about potentially influential leaders who are moderate taking the fundamentalists to task. I don't know who the leaders are in these communities, but I'm assuming they have some.

At a point in time somewhat before 1950 most fundamentalist looked at the seminaries and realized they were all full of people teaching much more liberal views of scripture. They got together and formed new seminaries for themselves. If you do not want to run into the kind of thought at Union theological you can now go to Dallas. There you can require anybody not fitting into the fundamentalist dogma to leave. As a result leaders of a more liberal pesuasion speak to people of like mind and fundamentalists are careful to select leader of like mind.

I do not think the seperation is a good thing. I genuinely do not think fundamentalist are all bad. In fact there is a lot of decent people. I feel respectfor them but that respect does not mean I respect the emotional excesses and inflexible dogmas.(or more importantly the exclusiveness)

There are books critical of fundamentalist rigidity or exclusivism. Some are gentle some quite agressive. I am sure they help keep the arena for actual thought open but I think there is little chance that they will cause fundamentalism to disappear any time soon.