The Brothers Bundy, Lafferty, and Mormon Myth

[_Morley]

Including, it's been suggested, Joseph Smith, himself.

[_DrW]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that this kind of religious nonsense can, and often does, give rise to all kinds of anti-social behaviors, including the murder of innocents?

Because I'm writing a doctoral dissertation on the cognitive science of religion and know better than to take the words of naïve dogmatists over the science of how religious beliefs do and do not influence behavior.

So, should I take this response to mean that you reject the following from the post by Honorentheos upthread?

There is a critical bit of doctrine at the heart of this that isn't outdated, has been clearly shown to have a great ability to manipulate a person's moral compass, and is central to Mormon belief: God said it, so His will be done.

Apologists and senior Church leaders are becoming well known for telling Mormons to understand and embrace their history. Looks as though the better one does on the understanding part, the more difficult the embracing part becomes.

That's quite reductive and simplistic.

That doesn't mean it isn't true.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/shooter-phila ... 34349.html

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The gunman who claimed allegiance to Islamic State after shooting a Philadelphia police officer was described by people who knew him as a devout, quiet Muslim who became more "combative" after trips to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

It's odd how a bit of doctrine influenced this quiet and peaceful Muslim man to attempt murder.

- Doc

[_The CCC]

ALL Christians believe in Blood Atonement. The only one that counts is the one that happened 2000 years ago.

[_sock puppet]

Apologists and senior Church leaders are becoming well known for telling Mormons to understand and embrace their history. Looks as though the better one does on the understanding part, the more difficult the embracing part becomes.

That's quite reductive and simplistic.

That doesn't mean it isn't true.

'plain and precious truths'--isn't that a Mormon mantra?

[_Chap]

'plain and precious truths'--isn't that a Mormon mantra?

You beat me to it.

I do find the continued hints by implication from some quarters that Mormonism is such a terribly subtle thing - too hard to grasp without a PhD - rather at odds with the frankly pedestrian and uncomplicated discourses delivered at General Conference by the Lord's chosen mouthpieces, the FP and the 12, none of whom have, I think, any academic training in a theological or philosophical discipline.

Do apologists publish theological glosses on GC talks, explaining the deep subtleties and fine distinctions hidden within the cracker-barrel homilies of the leadership? I think not. They know very well what would happen to them if they tried.

The mantle is of course far greater than the intellect. You have been warned.

[Guest]

On another thread, mentalgymnast and Huckelberry are trying to convince malkie and others as to the value of religious myth.
..........................
The main point here is that, while MG and others may claim that these myths are in Mormonism's past, they are still motivating highly visible behaviors that the public attributes to Mormonism. Worse yet, they have the clear potential to affect the behavior of any who believe them.
___________________________________

Dr W ,I wished that you had made the connections you had in mind a little more specific. However even taking a broad view of possible connections between religious myth and bad human actions one would have to be thinking in terms of myths having power to communicate values and to influence people toward those values. That general power was the value of religious myth which I was speaking of in the thread you referenced.

If there is power in religious myths it would be natural to notice that some of those values given strength may be negative. One could consider that there is also interpretations of myth that take on a mythical quality, some for good some for evil.

I have noticed myself, despite my religious belief, that it is not save to assume every idea or myth which can put on pious clothes is safe to be inspired by and committed to.

I think as Honorenteos has noted up thread myths about authority may contain specific dangers. It might be easy to say if we got rid of religion we would get rid of the dangers of authority. I do not think it is that simple. The social functions and possiblities of abusive social power exist outside of religion as well as in it. I think there are positive dimension of religious myth which speak of limiting power and asking respect for people. I admit if speaking of scriptures that is not the only message and one that people may overlook.

[_Maksutov]

I think as Honorenteos has noted up thread myths about authority may contain specific dangers. It might be easy to say if we got rid of religion we would get rid of the dangers of authority. I do not think it is that simple. The social functions and possiblities of abusive social power exist outside of religion as well as in it. I think there are positive dimension of religious myth which speak of limiting power and asking respect for people. I admit if speaking of scriptures that is not the only message and one that people may overlook.

Well put.

[_DrW]

On another thread, mentalgymnast and Huckelberry are trying to convince malkie and others as to the value of religious myth.
..........................
The main point here is that, while MG and others may claim that these myths are in Mormonism's past, they are still motivating highly visible behaviors that the public attributes to Mormonism. Worse yet, they have the clear potential to affect the behavior of any who believe them.
___________________________________

Dr W ,I wished that you had made the connections you had in mind a little more specific. However even taking a broad view of possible connections between religious myth and bad human actions one would have to be thinking in terms of myths having power to communicate values and to influence people toward those values. That general power was the value of religious myth which I was speaking of in the thread you referenced.

If there is power in religious myths it would be natural to notice that some of those values given strength may be negative. One could consider that there is also interpretations of myth that take on a mythical quality, some for good some for evil.

I have noticed myself, despite my religious belief, that it is not save to assume every idea or myth which can put on pious clothes is safe to be inspired by and committed to.

I think as Honorenteos has noted up thread myths about authority may contain specific dangers. It might be easy to say if we got rid of religion we would get rid of the dangers of authority. I do not think it is that simple. The social functions and possiblities of abusive social power exist outside of religion as well as in it. I think there are positive dimension of religious myth which speak of limiting power and asking respect for people. I admit if speaking of scriptures that is not the only message and one that people may overlook.

Hey Huckelberry,

Do you think that it would be possible for humans to achieve social order and harmony on a large scale (populations in the millions) without the need for some kind of unifying mythology related to an imagined supernatural deity?

Do you think that societies that believe in religious myth, and are thus lead by individuals who claim to themselves some kind of authority from an imagined deity, are more likely to have problems with abuse of authority than societies wherein leaders are democratically elected by the voice of the governed?

Do you think it possible that such a secular democratic society would be shown year upon year to have higher rates of life satisfaction, happiness and fulfillment than an age-matched, mainly God-fearing, cohort?

I claim that the answer to each of these three questions is an unequivocal Yes.

In other words, one can debate the effects, advantages and drawbacks of religious myth in society. But what's the point? In my experience, societies get along much better when the vast majority of members have no more than a passing historical interest in religious myths.

In the latest OECD Life Satisfaction Survey, the US came in at number 12 out of 36 countries participating. (That's a score of only 67% when graded on the curve.)

The eleven countries that ranked higher than the US are, for all practical purposes, secular, and certainly more secular than the US.

Turns out that I have worked or otherwise spent time in all of the top 11 countries* on the list, except for for Iceland. I will tell you that one of the really great things about life in all of these countries (with the possible exception of Israel*) is that almost no one pays any attention to religious nonsense - not from the Republican Party, not from Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Evangelicals, or prosperity church televangelists. Religious nonsense is just not on the daily radar screen - at all. Instead of thinking about the religious right, they tend to think in terms of realpolitik.

Does humankind still really need unfounded myths of the supernatural, just so stories, and gods that are obliged fit in exceedingly small, and rapidly shrinking, gaps in order to live a meaningful and fulfilling life?

Would you imagine that the ultra orthodox Jews* in Israel are happier and more fulfilled (or of more benefit to society) with their mindless and time consuming rituals than are the folks who work at Technion or the Weizmann Institute developing new computer languages or low cost medical diagnostic devices for use in the third world?

__________________________________________

*Israel, which came in at number 5, is usually estimated at about 80% secular, even though most citizens still observe some of the traditions.

The ultra orthodox constitute only about 5% of the population. The ultra orthodox settlements have wire strung on tall poles around the perimeter of the relatively small housing projects. Anyone who travels beyond the wire on the Sabbath is considered a Sabbath breaker. One of the cottage industries in Israel is developing automated devices that do such things as push wheelchairs, manage breathing oxygen, run water, and turn on lights and A/C so the orthodox can get things done on the Sabbath without performing actual physical labor which, of course, would again break the Sabbath.

[_honorentheos]

One of the mantras of cafeteria Mormonism is that the Church is a great place to raise a family even if it isn't true in any literal sense. I took that position on once and received a lot of push-back from nomish Mormons when I argued that a talk presented in a fireside being discussed was an example of how the Church taught members proscribed morality rather than how to make moral judgments. Mormonism teaches moral positions and tells its membership which position is the right one and which is the wrong. To some who favor a certain rigid conservative form of moral system this may seem like the Church is teaching morality, which I understand having been raised in the system myself and having held that same view.

What seems problematic for Mormons, and for religion in general in the scriptural sense as huckleberry acknowledged, is that the God of Judeo-Christian tradition is not reliably consistent. Mormon god even less consistent. "There is a time and a season for every purpose under heaven"..."That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."

In the context of restored revelation, this doctrine seems to mirror what is reality - moral absolutes are few and far between - but rather than help a person learn to make complex moral judgments against the backdrop of complex ethical situations, one is taught the answer is still proscribed for them. It's the paradox of the Mormon experiment in exaltation, in my opinion, that it seems to infantilize the membership rather than provide the tools necessary for a well-developed maturation of mind, spirit, and ethics. It's probably why I'm not favorable to most of the hints dropped by mentalgymnast and those of a similar mind that there is underlying worth to Church adherence that gives it truth-value beyond the historical and doctrinal problems we all seem well aware of but which seem to still allow for a wide variety of views.

If, in the abstract, we are left to seek for the Good, Beautiful, and the True as best we can there seems more steps backwards in taking on the Mormon perspective of child-like submission to God's mouthpieces on earth that relies on the balance being paid back with interest in the next life. In the face of Joseph Smith's polygamy, the blood on the hands of many prophets through the ages from the Old Testament to Brigham Young, and even the ticky-tacky aesthetic of modern post-Hinckley Mormonism leaves me to wonder...what is it they still see that justifies this gamble?

What I come back to is the nomish response. The Church is a good place to raise a family if one wants unrealistically simple answers and a world that is rainbows and gum drops and it's completely realistic to a person that the only alternative would leave them to succumb to their worst impulses of murder, rape, and drug abuse without anyone to tell them God's will. Or, one just likes the idea of going to a better heaven than everyone else, maybe.

BUT...

...a group of secular pot-smoking mountain-biking friends I have can be the church-y-ish people I've ever met, with intensely judgmental attitudes and boundary maintenance of group dogma, negativity used as power dynamics, and a hell of a lot of gossip. Which is interesting given freedom from the "bad" close-mindedness of their various religious upbringings is across the board considered to be what make them better than other people...to the point of being SNL church ladies over their moral judgments and how well people adhered to their standards - or failed to, as the case may be. A couple of us were discussing politics and religion while on a trip and it was interesting to me how the initial assumption was that “morality” as a term applied to religious judgment and not making moral judgments was considered a positive distinction. That is, until I asked to broaden the term to include such judgments as the types of foods a person ate (fast food being looked down on, and thus a “sin” of sorts) or having correct positions on issues that the group assumed divided “good” from “bad”. That didn’t go far. No one likes the idea they have not shed their old skin as effectively as we’d like to think we have I guess.

Anyway, it seems good people are good people whether they come up through a religious background or something else. And moral development isn't something that comes automatically with the distancing of one's self from religion.

It also seems that the impulse to demonize, which I'm more and more inclined to associate with not yet mature moral judgment, is not avoided inherently by being on a particular better path one may be fortunate enough to spend their life journey traveling. In some ways, I'm grateful for my being raised in Mormonism. And especially for the experience of having that worldview explode on me. There were life lessons there I appreciate that make me not resent whatever negative came with it. If religion helps people expand their circle of inclusion, I think that's largely a positive. And if they are capable of making choices that address when the circle is collapsing where their inner moral compass suggests it is most necessary to be inclusive, I'd say they're doing as well as any of us could hope.

Looking inward, our attitudes towards those of faith on this board can reveal where we have a lot still to learn, frankly. Are we better than those who judge same-sex couples as flawed when we judge those of faith to be flawed? How does that really work? I haven't figured that out myself so while I'm far to the side of religion not being based on some form of supernatural truth, I'm not sure that there is good cause to consider it any more or less a malady of thinking than any other form of certitude. But what do I know.