The Living Community: Core Principles

[_harmony]

So is this anti-religion, then? That if a person is religious, spiritual, believes in "whatever", that this community would not be a good place for them?

I guess I'm trying to figure out what this is, in relation to who I am (not that it matters except in the general sense, because I"m not in Utah and have no plans to ever be there for any extended length of time)

[_Dad of a Mormon]

So is this anti-religion, then? That if a person is religious, spiritual, believes in "whatever", that this community would not be a good place for them?

I guess I'm trying to figure out what this is, in relation to who I am (not that it matters except in the general sense, because I"m not in Utah and have no plans to ever be there for any extended length of time)

It doesn't sound antireligious as much as it is a-religious. Your religion is irrelevant to the aims of the organization.

[_harmony]

So is this anti-religion, then? That if a person is religious, spiritual, believes in "whatever", that this community would not be a good place for them?

I guess I'm trying to figure out what this is, in relation to who I am (not that it matters except in the general sense, because I"m not in Utah and have no plans to ever be there for any extended length of time)

It doesn't sound antireligious as much as it is a-religious. Your religion is irrelevant to the aims of the organization.

Then what differentiates it from a PTA or Parents Without Partners or any other organization that meets regularly?

[_bcspace]

3. We hold that living a good life requires neither fear of punishment nor promise of reward.

Antithetical to 2 Nephi 2. I have to agree with the earlier assesment that this is similar to the Humanist Manifesto; something that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at war with and exists as an insidious sub-culture within the secret combination known as the Democratic Party.

[_sock puppet]

3. We hold that living a good life requires neither fear of punishment nor promise of reward.

Antithetical to 2 Nephi 2. I have to agree with the earlier assesment that this is similar to the Humanist Manifesto; something that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at war with and exists as an insidious sub-culture within the secret combination known as the Democratic Party.

Really? You 'have to'? You're just compelled in the matter? You have no choice or free agency?

You know, bcspace, I don't belong to any political party (a libertarian I am), but if elohim is a card-carrying partisan, I suspect it's just as likely as a Democrat as a Republican.

[_moksha]

... something that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at war with and exists as an insidious sub-culture within the secret combination known as the Democratic Party.

Does this new war making Gospel of Jesus Christ have its roots in the Koch brother's checkbook?

[_why me]

All are welcome, but they must leave their religion at the door.

My first impression is that it sounds very cultish, The Living Community. And the principles do too. However, I think that your new organization will fail as it grows larger. Much more difficult to keep people together in thought and deed as the organization grows in number with different personalities.

Joseph Smith had this problem in the early days of the LDS church. People leave, make negative comments, there are disagreements between personalities, envy etc. But as long he could put the church in a log cabin, no problem.

No one can leave their religion at the door not even exmormons like yourself. You own organization has its roots in Mormonism since you and your wife have been influenced by Mormon culture. Likewise for any postmo who joins your organization. But this likewise would hold true for former catholics, protestants, and jews. No one can put their cultural heritage at the door.

[_Buffalo]

3. We hold that living a good life requires neither fear of punishment nor promise of reward.

Antithetical to 2 Nephi 2. I have to agree with the earlier assesment that this is similar to the Humanist Manifesto; something that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at war with and exists as an insidious sub-culture within the secret combination known as the Democratic Party.

2 Nephi 2 is nonsensical. The rest of your paranoid rant isn't worth a response.

[_Buffalo]

All are welcome, but they must leave their religion at the door.

My first impression is that it sounds very cultish, The Living Community. And the principles do too. However, I think that your new organization will fail as it grows larger. Much more difficult to keep people together in thought and deed as the organization grows in number with different personalities.

Joseph Smith had this problem in the early days of the LDS church. People leave, make negative comments, there are disagreements between personalities, envy etc. But as long he could put the church in a log cabin, no problem.

No one can leave their religion at the door not even exmormons like yourself. You own organization has its roots in Mormonism since you and your wife have been influenced by Mormon culture. Likewise for any postmo who joins your organization. But this likewise would hold true for former catholics, protestants, and jews. No one can put their cultural heritage at the door.

What specifically is cultish about it?

[_Daniel2]

Why are you proselyting so hard for the Unitarians?

Two responses to your question:

First, of all, I'm a Unitarian Universalist, myself. I don't attend weekly because of both logistics and because I don't always feel the need to.

Second, I wouldn't classify the two posts I shared about Unitarianism to be "hard proselyting," and am curious that you perceived them to be so. I'm slightly taken aback by what seems to be an elevated level of sensativity to the posts I shared.

It's quite Unitarian to depart from any proscribed path (even the Unitarian one!)--which it appears is what you've done, in leaving it behind--a choice which, now that you've explained that you've already tried it and it didn't speak to you, I fully appreciate and support you in doing.

In sum, then, I don't believe I was "proselyting heavily/hard" to you on behalf of Unitarianism--I was merely bringing to your attention a path, way of life, set of values, and a community that looked, to me, to be very similiar to most of the principles you are clearly promoting.

In fact, I was a Unitarian for about 5 years. We have some fundamental disagreements with the Unitarians. Namely:

1. We reject a profession clergy. They do not.
2. We reject religious tradition and are non-theist. As you pointed out above the UU site one of their sources as "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves". We also reject "prophets" or any other kind of metaphysical sage. They do not.
3. They are pluralistic. We reject all religion as anything other than tradition. They embrace all relgions all all religious thought: "We believe in the freedom of religious expression. All individuals should be encouraged to develop a personal theology, and to openly present their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal. ".

Anyway, I could go on, but you should get the idea.

Interestingly, I don't believe I disagree with any of your above points (except, perhaps, the first point--though even that is debatable, depending on what you mean)--and yet I remain Unitarian.

With the understanding that I have no desire to re-convert you (and truly, I have no idea how involved you were with the UUA--my experience in attending services in CT, GA, NY, and UT has been each congregation and community of believers is radically different from every other community), but in the interests of clarifying and having some thoughtful discussion on the board:

As A Unitarian Universalist:

1. I don't feel that professional clergy are any better/more special/more entitled to deference/reverence/support, but respect that some UU's desire and contribute financially for professional leaders of their congregation. I am not one of them.

2. I reject any literal interpretation of religious tradition, and am non-theist. Many UU's I know are likewise either Atheists or Agnostics or have no belief in a theistic being or power--which seems to be in line with what you seem to be saying. When referring to Jewish and Christian scriptures as "one of many sources of the Faith," most of us view that source assomething that may be as symbolically truthfully-relevant or on par with Robert Frost poetry or Simon and Garfunkel lyrics, but we'd find more literal truth in the writings of Steven Hawkings. The term "prophet" would be anyone who has a fragment of truth to share--like you, I don't subscribe to the notion that a "prophet" is anyone with a connection to something "metaphysical." In my view, we can ALL be "prophets"--and we all ARE, in some way.

3. I know many UU's that reject religion as anything other than "religion." We are not pluralistic in the sense that we believe "all religions are true"--but that "truth" (in the sense that SOMETHING of value describing the human condition) "can be found in every human story, for those that are open to seeing and learning about it--whether that is from science, or even religious traditions that are obviously not literally true.

Fascinatingly and ironically, you then quote how we believe all individuals should be free to develop their own theology as if that is evidence of something you and we UU's profoundly disagree with--and yet, according to my view, you've done exactly that--developed your own personal theology (in rejecting ANY theology)--which is exactly in keeping with UU principles, in and of itself).

Thanks for the good discussion, John--and best of luck to you with your new group. It sounds like something I'd quite agree with and support, as well.

Daniel2