Scott Gordon: Mormons Can Believe Whatever They Want

[_Carton]

I'm always amused when religionists try to conflate secularism with Marxism. What made Marxism so deadly was its slavish duplication of the worst traits of Abrahamic religions (grand purpose, idea that the cause is worth more than the lives of individuals, ultimate triumph over evil, founding prophetic figure, etc).

This is an excellent point, Buffalo. Social justice cannot be administered if you let the reins of government get hijacked by would-be messiahs. Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela are good examples of how socialism works just as good as capitalism in terms of making a few people very, very rich while the rest of the country scrounges for rice and beans.

Isn't it the apologists who always remind us you can't judge a system by it's worst adherents?

[_BartBurk]

I'm always amused when religionists try to conflate secularism with Marxism. What made Marxism so deadly was its slavish duplication of the worst traits of Abrahamic religions (grand purpose, idea that the cause is worth more than the lives of individuals, ultimate triumph over evil, founding prophetic figure, etc).

This is an excellent point, Buffalo. Social justice cannot be administered if you let the reins of government get hijacked by would-be messiahs. Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela are good examples of how socialism works just as good as capitalism in terms of making a few people very, very rich while the rest of the country scrounges for rice and beans.

Isn't it the apologists who always remind us you can't judge a system by it's worst adherents?

In the capitalistic system I live in very few people are scrounging for rice and beans. I haven't seen a communist system work well yet. In fact the capitalistic systems have developed safety nets for those who might otherwise be scrounging for rice and beans.

[_Buffalo]

In the capitalistic system I live in very few people are scrounging for rice and beans. I haven't seen a communist system work well yet. In fact the capitalistic systems have developed safety nets for those who might otherwise be scrounging for rice and beans.

We've never seen pure capitalism or pure Marxism at play, but capitalism with a healthy dose of semi-socialist checks and balances seems to work best. Social democracy, in other words. Abandoning the messianic utopian ideal of Marxism and the social Darwinism of pure capitalism for a healthier middle way.

[_Carton]

In the capitalistic system I live in very few people are scrounging for rice and beans. I haven't seen a communist system work well yet. In fact the capitalistic systems have developed safety nets for those who might otherwise be scrounging for rice and beans.

We've never seen pure capitalism or pure Marxism at play, but capitalism with a healthy dose of semi-socialist checks and balances seems to work best. Social democracy, in other words. Abandoning the messianic utopian ideal of Marxism and the social Darwinism of pure capitalism for a healthier middle way.

As I have understood it, this is pretty much what Joseph Smith was trying to do with his "Law of Consecration". What's ironic is that Mormons have abandoned it altogether. People like bcspace represent the Mormonism of the 20th and 21st centuries: pure hard-ball capitalists all the way.

[_Chap]

Once you remove God from the equation everything is justifiable. ...

One of the things that shocked Jesuit missionaries when they arrived in China around 1600 was that fact that in their terms the Chinese governing elite appeared to be effectively atheist.

And yet, again in comparison with the Europe of their day, China seemed to be a well-governed and orderly country, with a conscientious and thoughtful ruling class highly concerned with moral action. The best the Jesuits could do was, in effect, to claim that China had anciently possessed a knowledge of their deity from the light of nature, but had forgotten it. Oddly enough, very few educated Chinese with whom the Jesuits interacted turned out to find the Christian revelation very interesting ...

There are, and always have been, decent people outside the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, and indeed outside all theistic traditions. There have been monsters within it. You will find it quite hard to dissect either theism or atheism away from its historical context and ascribe good or evil qualities to belief or disbelief alone in a convincing way.

uh what? One thing the RC church struggled with in China in the early 1600's was the syncretic mix of pagan practices, specifically, offerings to the Emperor and ancestors. At the ending of the Ming dynasty, the Jesuits were given a choice by the Emperor to accept Confuscian and ancestral rites, or get deported. They were deported.

I am sorry to say that you are really not as well informed about the history of the Jesuit mission in China as you think you are, though this board is not really the place to argue about it.

1. In fact, at the end of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) the Jesuits had already built up quite a good position in terms of interest in their teachings of 'western learning' (including mathematics and astronomy) amongst Chinese intellectuals. They were never expelled under the Ming.

2. With the founding of the Qing in 1644, the Jesuits scored a major coup by getting themselves put in charge of the Qintianjian, the state office for calendrical astronomy, a key department of state. Despite attacks by Chinese scholars who did not like to see foreigners in such a position, they retained position as resident court specialists in technical matters for much of the time until the dissolution of their order by the papacy in 1773, though their freedom to act as religious missionaries was sometimes constrained.

3. There were no offerings to the Emperor. As for ancestral ceremonies, the position of the Jesuits was specifically that these were not idolatrous rites, but merely 'civil ceremonies' in which Christian converts might continue to participate without sin. Whether you agree with that or not, it was based on a more profound knowledge and study of Chinese classical texts than any European had ever approached in the past. The Jesuits did however have their enemies in other religious orders, and as a result the Jesuits were sent a papal legate, who in 1707 issued a decree that such rites were to be abolished, gravely damaging the position of the Jesuits in the eyes of the Kangxi emperor who said "it seems after all that these people are just another bigoted religion like the Buddhists". The legate was imprisoned at Macao, but the Jesuits stayed on. Indeed the emperor even sent a delegation of them to Rome to convey his protests against the Pope's interference in the lives of his subjects.

(by the way, the word is 'Confucianism'.)

[_BartBurk]

We've never seen pure capitalism or pure Marxism at play, but capitalism with a healthy dose of semi-socialist checks and balances seems to work best. Social democracy, in other words. Abandoning the messianic utopian ideal of Marxism and the social Darwinism of pure capitalism for a healthier middle way.

As I have understood it, this is pretty much what Joseph Smith was trying to do with his "Law of Consecration". What's ironic is that Mormons have abandoned it altogether. People like bcspace represent the Mormonism of the 20th and 21st centuries: pure hard-ball capitalists all the way.[/quote]

I don't think there is anyone in the U.S. ready to abandon the safety net altogether. Even the Ryan policies are meant to be a means of saving Social Security and Medicare rather than abandoning them. I also don't know of anyone willing to completely abandon the food stamp program although a case could be made that it needs to be reformed.

[_madeleine]

I am sorry to say that you are really not as well informed about the history of the Jesuit mission in China as you think you are, though this board is not really the place to argue about it.

1. In fact, at the end of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) the Jesuits had already built up quite a good position in terms of interest in their teachings of 'western learning' (including mathematics and astronomy) amongst Chinese intellectuals. They were never expelled under the Ming.

After the Ming dynasty, is what I wrote.

2. With the founding of the Qing in 1644, the Jesuits scored a major coup by getting themselves put in charge of the Qintianjian, the state office for calendrical astronomy, a key department of state. Despite attacks by Chinese scholars who did not like to see foreigners in such a position, they retained position as resident court specialists in technical matters for much of the time until the dissolution of their order by the papacy in 1773, though their freedom to act as religious missionaries was sometimes constrained.

Jesuits will remain in a country where religious constraints are place, doing other work. Perhaps the govt. viewed them as non-religious. Some Catholic missionaries do the same thing, such as the the Maryknolls. Living and working among people, without doing any religious works.

3. There were no offerings to the Emperor. As for ancestral ceremonies, the position of the Jesuits was specifically that these were not idolatrous rites, but merely 'civil ceremonies' in which Christian converts might continue to participate without sin. Whether you agree with that or not, it was based on a more profound knowledge and study of Chinese classical texts than any European had ever approached in the past. The Jesuits did however have their enemies in other religious orders, and as a result the Jesuits were sent a papal legate, who in 1707 issued a decree that such rites were to be abolished, gravely damaging the position of the Jesuits in the eyes of the Kangxi emperor who said "it seems after all that these people are just another bigoted religion like the Buddhists". The legate was imprisoned at Macao, but the Jesuits stayed on. Indeed the emperor even sent a delegation of them to Rome to convey his protests against the Pope's interference in the lives of his subjects.

That is according to the Jesuits, not according to the Catholic Church. The Jesuits have a reputation of doing their own thing, still, to this day. Thus it is why it came to a head eventually. Nothing moves quickly in the Catholic Church.

The Chinese government takes the same stance today, not wanting the heads of religions to regulate what goes on in the religion inside of China. The Chinese government appoints religious leaders, including Catholic arch-bishops, which you can imagine creates friction. These bishops are not recognized as valid by the Catholic Church.

(by the way, the word is 'Confucianism'.)

Thanks professor. ;)

[_Chap]

I am sorry to say that you are really not as well informed about the history of the Jesuit mission in China as you think you are, though this board is not really the place to argue about it.

1. In fact, at the end of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) the Jesuits had already built up quite a good position in terms of interest in their teachings of 'western learning' (including mathematics and astronomy) amongst Chinese intellectuals. They were never expelled under the Ming.

After the Ming dynasty, is what I wrote....

No you didn't, as a matter of fact ...

At the ending of the Ming dynasty, the Jesuits were given a choice by the Emperor to accept Confuscian and ancestral rites, or get deported. They were deported.

But let's forget this non-Mormon interlude. My point in talking about the Jesuits in China was simply to give one instance where some very non-naive Christians found themselves faced with the fact that being a theist need not mean being without morality.

[_brade]

Just thought I'd pop in here and say that Mormons are free to believe whatever they want, be honest during interviews, and still be allowed full fellowship in the same way that a holdup victim who doesn't want to get shot is free not to hand over his money upon threat of being shot if he doesn't.

[_DrW]

Here is the difference between you and me - between a religionist and a secularist.

Your worldview is based on unfounded belief and your imagination. There is no physical evidence to back up your religious beliefs and therefore they are no more valid than those of the FLDS, or for that matter, the Muslims among whom I live. You worldview is inconsistent and self contradictory because it is not based on evidence. It has no grounding. It is whatever you or those you follow can feel or imagine. Look at the whoppers Joseph Smith made up as he went along inventing Mormonism in the first place.

The worldview of the secular is based on physical evidence, and while there are any number of variations, one can always check their worldview against evidence. Secularists don't labor under false concepts about the age of the earth, the ascent of man, the curse of cain, the role of women. They don't have to make up excuses for the bad behavior of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Paul Dunn or Gordon Hinkley or continually choose between faith and fact.

All the secularist has to do is try to justify the behavior of a Stalin or a Hitler -- that's where it seems to always lead. Once you remove God from the equation everything is justifiable. That doesn't mean those who believe in God are always good at doing the right thing either (see Iran), but democracy seems to thrive more in Judeo-Christian nations where God is believed to be the source of our rights rather than rights deriving from the politicians in power at the moment. That has always been the strength of the American experiment where God is recognized as the source of our rights, but a state church is banned. It even has room for secularists who don't believe at all.

Hitler was a Catholic, not a secularist. His unfounded belief was the religion of catholicism. Stalin was a communist with unfounded belief in himself and the communist state. Stalin's behavior should no more be considered as an typical of that of an atheist than Joseph Smith's should be considered typical of that of a Christian (or even a Mormon for that matter).

As for taking God out of society, the most successful per capita national societies on this planet, by pretty much any reasonable measure, are secular.