Hans Castorp!?!?! Come on down....

[_zeezrom]

Hans,

If we're talking about contemporary Mormonism, I'm interested in how an authoritarian institution, with a wagonload of doctrinal propositions and historical assertions that are very vulnerable to critique, sustains itself in modernity, and conversely, how thinking members negotiate their relationship with the church.

The same way most other religions do it, I suppose.

[_Equality]

I dig your blog, too, Hans. I liked your post about Luther and grace. I once wrote a graduate paper on Luther and humanism, which introduced me to the works of Erasmus. Are you an Erasmus fan?

Sorry to take so long to answer, Equality. Actually, I don't like Erasmus particularly. I prefer edgier folks; not so good for civil peace, maybe, but much more readable. Anyway, the poor guy got pwned by Luther: See The Bondage of the Will.

hc

Agreed. I wrote a paper in Grad school on "De Servo Arbitrio." Luther could teach the Mormon apologists a thing or two. He had mad debating skills.

[_hans castorp]

Hans,

If we're talking about contemporary Mormonism, I'm interested in how an authoritarian institution, with a wagonload of doctrinal propositions and historical assertions that are very vulnerable to critique, sustains itself in modernity, and conversely, how thinking members negotiate their relationship with the church.

The same way most other religions do it, I suppose.

That may very well be, but I think Mormonism requires more negotiating. And its issues have occurred in a very different surrounding social and intellectual environment. It may be difficult for a conservative evangelical to deal with the Book of Daniel, but he or she doesn't have the greater, and different, problems of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, etc. A Mormon has to negotiate the problems any believer has to face (or not), but there's all this other stuff on top of it.

hc

[_Hoops]

Agreed. I wrote a paper in Grad school on "De Servo Arbitrio." Luther could teach the Mormon apologists a thing or two. He had mad debating skills.

Huh! And my papers in grad school were much like my final paper: the statistical significance of offensive rebounding.

I'll stand back and watch.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I dig your blog, too, Hans. I liked your post about Luther and grace. I once wrote a graduate paper on Luther and humanism, which introduced me to the works of Erasmus. Are you an Erasmus fan?

Sorry to take so long to answer, Equality. Actually, I don't like Erasmus particularly. I prefer edgier folks; not so good for civil peace, maybe, but much more readable. Anyway, the poor guy got pwned by Luther: See The Bondage of the Will.

hc

Well, Luther is undoubtedly edgy. Scatologically so, even.

Joseph Smith shook in his boots when the devil cast his dark shadow over the Sacred Grove.

Luther simply told the devil to eat s*** and flung some at him. Martin didn't play around.

KA

[_Kishkumen]

It is wonderful to have you join us, Hans. I enjoyed reading your blog immensely. I hope you stick around and continue to favor us with your insights.

[_hans castorp]

It is wonderful to have you join us, Hans. I enjoyed reading your blog immensely. I hope you stick around and continue to favor us with your insights.

Thanks! Good people here; think I'll stick around.

hc

[_zeezrom]

That may very well be, but I think Mormonism requires more negotiating. And its issues have occurred in a very different surrounding social and intellectual environment. It may be difficult for a conservative evangelical to deal with the Book of Daniel, but he or she doesn't have the greater, and different, problems of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, etc. A Mormon has to negotiate the problems any believer has to face (or not), but there's all this other stuff on top of it.

hc

Hey Hans,

Thank you for discussing this. I don't mean to pick on you. This topic is brought up a lot. It just happens that your mention of this piqued my interest again.

This is the usual topic of how it amazes the nevermo Christian that Mormons believe in crazy stuff while it amazes them less that they believe in crazy stuff.

Might I ask you a question? Let's say I tell you I believe in Athena as a living, immortal being that really exists. Do you think I must negotiate more or less than the conservative evangelical in order to maintain that belief?

You mention that Mormons have the double duty of carrying two layers while the conservative evangelical only has one layer. Mormons have the Book of Abraham *AND* the book of Daniel at the same time. I would like to suggest that we can't look at this as burdens of belief layers. Once you accept one idea, you can easily accept another. In other words, these "layers of belief" have no density. It does not feel like extra burden to the believing Mormon.

Same for me. A belief in Athena is not a burden to me because I find the belief inspiring, beautiful, amazing, exhillerating, etc. I find it as uplifting while my TBM counterparts find it stupid, silly, and meaningless.

What do you think?

[_hans castorp]

Zeezrom,

Thanks for the questions.

This is the usual topic of how it amazes the nevermo Christian that Mormons believe in crazy stuff while it amazes them less that they believe in crazy stuff.

I don't mean it quite like that, although it is amazing. [Imagine smiley.] I don't mean it from a Christian point of view; all believers believe amazing stuff, but some stuff is more amazing than others. And I'm not really thinking about all believers, but about those whose faith has become in some way problematic.

Might I ask you a question? Let's say I tell you I believe in Athena as a living, immortal being that really exists. Do you think I must negotiate more or less than the conservative evangelical in order to maintain that belief?

In short, yes. I'd be interested in knowing how you acquired your belief, and in the intellectual, psychological, and social factors that permit you to retain it. The pressure on you to give up that belief must be intense.

You mention that Mormons have the double duty of carrying two layers while the conservative evangelical only has one layer. Mormons have the Book of Abraham *AND* the book of Daniel at the same time. I would like to suggest that we can't look at this as burdens of belief layers. Once you accept one idea, you can easily accept another. In other words, these "layers of belief" have no density. It does not feel like extra burden to the believing Mormon.

I disagree with you here. If someone believes in God, is it therefore easier for him or her to believe that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe? I think beliefs are dense, at least in the sense that the pressure of what Charles Taylor calls the "social imaginary"--"the way ordinary people 'imagine' their social surroundings . . . shared by large groups of people . . . that common understanding which makes possible common practices, and a widely shared sense of legitimacy" (A Secular Age, pp. 171-172) makes them so.

And it does seem to me to be more problematic to struggle with the Book of Mormon, where there is so much relatively recent data to deal with, than Daniel, which at the earliest was written c. 2,000 years ago.

(It's interesting that survey research seems to show that there is a negative correlation between weekly church attendance belief in the paranormal.)

Same for me. A belief in Athena is not a burden to me because I find the belief inspiring, beautiful, amazing, exhillerating, etc. I find it as uplifting while my TBM counterparts find it stupid, silly, and meaningless.

Why do you suppose that is?

I think maybe we have two questions entwined here--the factors that make for belief or unbelief in general, especially within a believing community, and what happens when members of that community are confronted with an alternate set of beliefs. It's true that for the secularist, all religious commitments may seem equally false, but I don't think it's true otherwise.

I'm certainly interested in the struggles of believers from any more-or-less closed community--conservative ev's, Hasidim, traditionalist Catholics--with modernity; it's just that for me, these struggles seem to be more recent among Mormons, and the social ties seem very, very strong.

hc

[_zeezrom]

If someone believes in God, is it therefore easier for him or her to believe that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe? I think beliefs are dense, at least in the sense that the pressure of what Charles Taylor calls the "social imaginary"--"the way ordinary people 'imagine' their social surroundings . . . shared by large groups of people . . . that common understanding which makes possible common practices, and a widely shared sense of legitimacy" (A Secular Age, pp. 171-172) makes them so.

And it does seem to me to be more problematic to struggle with the Book of Mormon, where there is so much relatively recent data to deal with, than Daniel, which at the earliest was written c. 2,000 years ago.

Hans,

I think the sense of legitimacy is what carries the weight, not the ideas people believe in. Believing in the stories told by Homer is not difficult. Defending my faith in them to a hostile group is a whole different story.

Please keep in mind I am designing my ditch while sitting on the backhoe. In other words, I'm shooting from the hip like the loose cannon I've always been. I haven't spent much time with this theory. Thanks for the discussion!