What Mormonism teaches me about religion

[RainDog]

Apologies in advance for those I may offend.

I'm sharing this to talk about the issue of belief. When I look at Mormonism, I see the birth of every other religion, too. Because Mormonism originated in the U.S. - that also means it began in the not-too-distant past. Without the cover of a distant time, it's easier to ask about the origin of belief.

Revealed religious belief requires someone to accept the non-reality based stories of another person. When I hear the story of Joseph Smith and... Moroni (pardon, but I always think..what an appropriate name) I know that an entire religion came about because one guy claimed he saw a vision, an angel. Two other people claimed they were "witnesses." What this means is that they experienced the "same" vision or dream.

We know now that it's possible for charismatic people to influence the perceptions of others - to see things that aren't there - like the way Germans saw a superior "race" embodied in Hitler's political beliefs or the residents of Salem saw witchcraft among females.

I am honestly amazed that anyone would be incredulous enough to accept the beliefs of Mormonism - that anyone would take the stories that provide the foundation of the LDS belief literally. If someone is told these things are true as a child, however, I understand the belief would be as normal as being told that invisible germs make us sick. But upon reaching adulthood, surely we learn that things adults told us are not always true and we should examine those things to see if they do reflect reality.

Yet the belief is bound up in entire communities... in nearly an entire state, in a large population of people who reinforce that belief by enacting the rituals and approving of them - and by ostracizing those who don't participate. Buildings and monuments create a solid, engineered reality to shelter community belief.

Yet none of that matters, if your concern is with truth. If your concern is with belonging, however, it's dangerous to cut yourself off from your culture. Humans need one another to thrive and survive. Belief in some presence that compels us to reach out to others as we would have others reach out to us in times of need is a powerful motivator. Such belief creates community, and community reinforces belief.

When you are outside of that particular community and set of beliefs, however, religious understandings of the world seem bizarre and unsustainable for a mind that seeks to comprehend the world as it is, rather than as it we are told it is as children.

Of course, we all have beliefs that sustain us within our communities. We believe that all are created equal - even when we know all are not born into the same circumstances. All are created equal because we agree this idea treats others as we would hope to be treated ourselves.

We can accept this version of belief because it's mutual agreement and because its foundation is central to our reaction to community, and has been, even before we evolved our current consciousness of the world.

Isn't it enough to say that this golden rule, which exists across so many beliefs, is enough to sustain us? Do we need laws outside of those created by our institutions that were created to uphold this rule - isn't it enough to seek wisdom for how to live in this world without appealing to a power beyond reality?

This is what perplexes me about religion.

What Mormonism teaches me is how religion thrives.

[thelordofhell]

1. 10 suckers and it's shame

10 million suckers and it's a religion

[Yooperman]

2. yep... You are correct...

I broke away from religion decades ago. It was very difficult to do because I was raised being told that "Christianity" of some type was the truth. I searched and searched but all I found was a bunch of mostly males lead organizations reciting words they had been taught. They had no real understanding of what they were saying. Some were worse than others but all professed to have the "Truth" and yet their actions showed me otherwise. Fortunately I was able to finally realize that "Religion" and "Spirituality" are two completely different things as I know many "Religious" people but know very few "Spiritual" ones.

I lived for 12 years in Salt Lake City... If found the people there to mostly be good, honest and sincere in their beliefs. But to believe in something doesn't make it true and this is the case with all religious dogma.

I am very content to be religion free... and have zero worries about where I am going once I pass on.

Peace...

YM

[exboyfil]

3. My daughter's English teacher

is having her study the formation of the Christian Bible, the formation of another text sacred to a culture, and great Western thinkers. I have been reading some of her papers on Mormonism, and I am struck as to how its growth counters one of the biggest arguments in favor of Christianity (it must be true because so many in the early church died professing it and the church grew even through the persecution).

Reading through the supporting papers generated by the church, I get the same feeling I get when I read fundamentalist literature arguing against evolution. Facts must always be interpreted to support their worldview.

The thing I am trying to do is to view this information with an open mind so that I can try to gain an understanding of Joseph Smith and his followers. I know very little about the Mormon church other than what has been presented to me through the filter of my church. That is wrong. I also think learning about the various faiths from Richard Dawkins is also wrong for example. I wonder if you can conclude about Mormonism, Christianity, and Islam is that it is (in the immortal words of Douglas Adams) "Mostly Harmless" when faith is separated from the power of the state. On the other hand when power driven by faith is exercised through the state or other secular power we have (with apologies to Tom Clancy) "A Clear and Present Danger".

I am convinced most faiths run around in a free society seeking to be outraged (ie persecuted). It is not enough for a school child to bring her Bible to school and have Bible study with her friends - the state must force religious study of the majority faith on all students in a public school.

[NightWatcher]

4. What perplexes me the most is how we can stand back and agree that Mormonism (for one) is BS

I'm sorry to anyone who believes, but I'm guessing they've never stepped back to look at the big picture and its founding by a convicted fraudster. Oh, and Scientology is a scam to make money as well. Most of us sane people will agree.

So why are we so gentle when it comes to handling people who "believe" in things that obviously are not so?

If you needed heart surgery and went to meet a cardiologist and in his office you saw pictures of a Giant Cookie, and the Dr went on to tell you how a Giant Invisible Cookie lives in the sky above his house and blesses him with all things sweet and will allow him to live forever in Candyland when he dies, would you let this man crack open your chest?

So why do so many get a pass on their judgement just because they call it their religion?

Religion is a tool of control. It keeps the oppressed complacent because they believe that in the next life things will be better, so they dont rise up and take down their oppressors- handy, isnt it? It uses fear of eternal damnation in a pit of fire to get people to do their bidding. I cant think of an older threat...if you tell on me, you will be on fire forever, so keep quiet. That religion then turns around and demands a percentage of your income is a blatant red flag of it's fraudulence. Why does an all powerful Sky Guy need your income? Oh wait, he doesnt but his representatives here on earth need a new Cadillac.

I cant wait till we judge those who believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy accordingly with those who believe in L Ron, Joe Smith, and others.

[Fix The Stupid]

5. I love this post :)

You put into words what I have been thinking for some time...

All people, religious included, would mock and belittle anyone professing belief in the "Giant Cookie" - what's the difference between this idea and other religious beliefs? I see no difference.

Would anyone here, honestly speaking now, let an adult who believes in Santa have some kind of authority over them? Look to a Santa believer for guidance and leadership? Allow the Santa believer to dictate their lives in a moral/ethical way?

I think not.

Again, explain to me the difference between these beliefs and religious beliefs.

I'm all ears.

[cleanhippie]

6. You win the thread.

So why are we so gentle when it comes to handling people who "believe" in things that obviously are not so?

That is the million dollar question. Perhaps you should pose it to our believing friends here as an OP. Yes, you will get attacked, viciously, for even daring to make such a suggestion, which should answer your question.

[cbayer]

7. If one assumes that all the stories of a given religion are "non reality based"

from the get go, then I guess there is no other conclusion to draw but the one you do.

[RainDog]

8. Well, reality-based means a specific thing

And there is no religion I know of that can pass the smell test for whether nor can any of their texts claim they accurately represent history or science. An overwhelming number of the laws or rules for behavior contained within those religions are culturally and historically specific to eras in which there is no correspondence to our understanding of reality at this time...

so, I don't understand how anyone can make a claim that any religion is reality-based. how can you even make that claim?

what I also do not understand is why any woman would support religions that view her as a second-class citizen, as is entirely encoded in those same cultural and historical prejudices.

can you explain that one to me?

[cbayer]

9. Again, if you start from the assumption that all historic religious references and stories

are inaccurate, then it is not surprise that you reach the conclusions that you do. To say that they also reflect the culture of the time they were written does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they are not reality based.

I have made no claim, only reflected yours back to you.

Women supported the establishment of the US, even though they were viewed as second class citizens, which was also encoded in the cultural prejudices of the time. There were legitimate and overriding reasons to do so, and, working from within the system, changes took place over time.

[RainDog]

10. I didn't say "all" - I said the texts are obviously full of errors

and they are, without doubt. There are hundreds of verifiable instances in which these supposedly inspired texts are simply dead wrong. They don't reflect any omniscient intelligence - the demonstrate human stupidity.

I guess if women in the U.S. had to wait 2000 years, and if they were still waiting to be recognized as something other than second-class citizens that religious leaders think they can call on to be forced to use their bodies as incubators... when no father would be compelled, for instance, to even donate an organ, much less a possible life, for another human, including his child... I guess I could find some value in your claim.

Or, put it this way - which has a better track record - secular democracy with the power to change laws or religious dogma that remains stuck in some idiotic belief system based upon misogyny? EVERYONE who continues to support those religions continues to validate this misogyny, whether someone wants to accept this is what he or she is doing or not.

This is, in fact, the definition of the problem of ideology - a failure to see how your belief system supports horrid social systems.

I haven't read anything in what you've said that does anything other than confirm the need to some to deny reality in order to maintain a sense of community. There is no way anyone can offer an apology for religion as it is practiced by the leaders of the Catholic Church or any fundamentalist one, either.

If someone holds an abstract belief in some power greater than our comprehension... then they have to admit that their religious leaders don't comprehend this power either, based upon their actions.

[cbayer]

11. Agree that the texts are contradictory and, therefore, can not all be true.

Most people do not read them literally or think they were actually written by a god, so they are able to see that the hand of man caused distortions and even fabrications.

I don't see this as a contest between secular democracy and religion. They are not mutually exclusive and each has a track record in it's own right.

You support the US, I suspect, in many ways. Does that mean that you validate the use of drones to kill innocents in foreign lands? I suspect pretty much everyone supports in some way organizations that do things that they would be individually opposed to. Each individual must weigh what they see as the positives and negatives and make their personal choice.

Separating the leadership of an organization or church from it's adherents is an important distinction to make. I ran into people in other countries that held me personally responsible for the behavior of GW Bush.

No one has to believe, including you. No one has the right to tell someone else that they shouldn't believe, including you.

[cleanhippie]

13. "Most people do not read them literally or think they were actually written by a god" - Really?

That is simply just not true, cbayer. Even for yourself. Do you believe that your god was born from a supernatural conception, died for your sins, and was resurrected?

I think the point being made here, is that at some level, belief in a religion means that one must suspend reality, even in some small way, in order to justify those beliefs. Is this not the case?

[RainDog]

32. Yes. This "gradation" of belief is how people say "I'm not like that"

Someone from outside of a religious belief system would put the virgin birth story right up there with Athena springing from the head of Zeus.

The idea that a human would become the "final sacrifice," rather than a goat once a year, is a barbaric idea outside of that belief system.

The idea that someone was dead for three days - and came back to life - the only way anyone would believe that now is if someone had been given datura or other zombifying tinctures that come out of another particular religious tradition that "kills" and "resurrects" people and turns them into slaves.

If someone wants to argue there is reality beyond our five senses - that still doesn't undo reality in which we live and never has, unless someone believes in supernatural events that happened ancient history. Why believe some of those stories and not the other ones at the same time?

[RainDog]

17. if they were not written by god, then why do they have any more validity than any other text?

so, basically, you are agreeing that dogma is a human invention. So humans run these institutions... to benefit themselves and to accrue power on this earth, not on any spiritual plane, it seems, or, perhaps, no god is involved in the way these institutions make decisions since they are obviously wrong... so... the dogma is wrong, results in repression for women, but that's just the way it is?

The comparison to the U.S. doesn't hold. I was born in this nation. I vote, along with others, for the way in which this nation is run. The church does not offer that and, more importantly, no one has citizenship in a church. It is a choice to attend a particular church. It's not a nationality with restrictions on immigration from one entity to another.

The church, on the other hand, claims its leadership has a divine mandate and inspiration. If you don't believe that - what is it about the dogma that compels you to defend it?

I have not made the claim that I have the right to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't believe. However, I am saying I find no logic in the beliefs and wonder how someone can defend association with an entity that will not allow women to have positions of leadership, for example, or a group that excommunicates the doctor and mother of a 9 year old who was raped and then had an abortion but not her rapist because, the church said, the rapist sin wasn't as bad.

How in the name of all that is ethical does anyone continue an association with an institution that makes such a claim?

It used to be considered impolite to discuss religion and politics (but here we are on a forum for that express purpose.) But when that religion works to oppress an entire gender - well, it's like abolitionists speaking out against slavery - such religious belief violates the very philosophical foundations of this nation. Such beliefs are in opposition to the best practices of any nation anywhere in the world.

I don't get why anyone would want to be associated with such a group.

[cbayer]

19. A recent post here highlighted a poll which showed that most people who consider themselves

christian believe that the bible was inspired by god but not written by god.

Now, here is the really good news! You don't have to be associated with any of these groups.

Neither do these women, but they are.

?w=658

Some people find their power and voice from within an organization and work to preserve the good of it while fighting the bad.

If you have never felt the good or benefitted from it, that's ok. If others have, that's ok as well. People will make their own personal decisions based on their own experiences and perspective.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

[RainDog]

21. That's true, people will make their own decisions

But not every decision makes sense outside of the cultural context of a system, rather than its dogma.

The KKK is a great organization for some people, too, and, for cultural reasons, they choose to associate with it, even tho many of its beliefs are horrific. Not everyone associated with the group acts on the beliefs they are taught. So, I suppose that personal decision is above criticism too.

[cbayer]

24. Are you really comparing all the flavors of different religious groups with the KKK?

An organization whose core premise is white superiority is a far cry from organizations who share a premise based on the teachings of Jesus.

If that difference isn't apparent, then there is really no more to say to you.

[RainDog]

26. I was talking about your attempt to say "it's personal"

to say.. it's my personal belief so I don't have to defend it when people ask me why I continue to make such an institution possible.

I was telling you that your attempt to deflect criticism by saying it's not okay to question someone's personal belief is a manipulation that is not going to work.

[cbayer]

30. You appear to be an anti-theist. Am I correct about that?

If you feel that all religious organizations and belief systems should be rejected because there is some corruption and abuse within some of them, then you have taken an extreme position for which there really is no room for debate. If you feel that all believers are somehow delusional, stupid or complicit, then there is not room for debate.

Even on DU, it is permissible to attack religious institutions and leaders and doctrine, but not to attack individual believing members simply because they believe

Why? Because that's how liberals/progressives generally behave towards others.

[RainDog]

31. My OP was about religion in general

And I have stated reasons for difficulties I have with many practitioners... AND my inability to understand why someone would prop up institutions that are not representative of liberal values.

I have consistently noted that those who exercise power in institutions are the real issue - why would anyone remain subservient to a belief system that claims it is a second-class citizen.

As I have noted these things, time after time, you have tried to argue this as personal belief, as some sort of fundie pov, a personal attack, but only after you offered up counterpoint points - that I also questioned, and also as an issue of extremism by placing right wing religious believers and religious observers in some sort of continuum that only exists because it is perpetuated, first and foremost, by tradition among all who lay claim to some "mainstream" religious belief.

And here again you attempt to discredit legitimate questions which you don't answer. It looks like denial, from where I sit. Obviously others would have different opinions. It's not about you, personally. It's about the way the arguments are framed and the attacks you attempt when you don't like the questions.

Or maybe that's not it at all.

However, no one compelled you to participate in this thread and, just because you chose to do so - that doesn't make you immune from the questions this issue poses for me in terms of how we all compromise ethical actions and think we're justified - and, in some cases, people do this by their association with groups that are outright misogynistic and homophobic.

That's the reality for anyone who has no emotional attachment to these institutions or beliefs - and that is why I said what I did about Mormonism.

[cbayer]

33. Denial of what?

That there are religious institutions, leaders and dogmatic beliefs that are not consistent with liberal/progressive values. I agree that there are.

What I argue is that there are religious institutions, leaders and dogmatic beliefs that are consistent with liberal/progressive values. I also argue that you inability to differentiate them is a part of the problem.

It is most definitely not about me personally. I am a pro-theist. I am also pro-atheist. I believe in religious freedom, including the right to not believe or have others beliefs forced on you.

What questions have I not answered for you? Why do some people remain members of organizations whose leadership have steadfastly held on to misogynistic or bigoted beliefs? My answer is this - because in those institutions they see, experience and have benefitted the good things they do and continue to support those things.

As you have no emotional attachment, you don't see those things. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Anyway, I have enjoyed having this civil conversation with you. We all struggle with our blind spots and we all see it differently. Nothing wrong with that. I would just like to see coalitions instead of divides, so we are better able to achieve the goals we all hold in common.

[RainDog]

35. Thanks for this reply

I think we agree - it's the social aspects that allow people to continue associations because humans have need of a sense of community.

If someone is part of a religious institution that doesn't hold regressive beliefs about human rights - then that group isn't really where the problem lies, for me, in this nation.

But the issue of religious association also brings another question to my mind: those parts of the world that are most religious are also the least democratic, have the most stratified economic systems and the worst educational outcomes for women.

Doesn't it make you wonder why religious is negatively correlated with civil societies at this time?

[cbayer]

36. I think we probably agree to a large extent as well.

That sense of community is a strong driver and probably has deep evolutionary roots and significance.

In terms of your last question, perhaps it is those countries which are most repressive in which religion offers a haven, hope and relief from what else is going on. I'm not sure.

Anyway, need to do dinner now. Hopefully we can talk again.

[RainDog]

34. I would really like people's answer to my questions

Please ask these women and others how, in the name of all that is ethical, they can support an institution that declares a 9 year old who was raped was committing a greater "sin" than the man who raped her.

Is this another example, for believers, in the imaginary - or are, perhaps, some women okay with such misogyny if it doesn't impact them directly?

Would these same women think it's useful to work within a totalitarian system to change it from within, or would those women choose to leave a nation, say, that used religious belief to punish and sometimes put women to death?

I cannot find a defense so I'm asking those who seemingly can.

[okasha]

12. It's also a reality-based fact

that some religions (mine, for instance; I'm pagan) never subordinated women. Others are making progress. The Episcopalians not only have ordained women clergy, the Presiding Bishop (who elsewhere would be called an Archbishop, but we had that little dust-up with the Brits back in 1776) is a woman and there are two "out" LGBT bishops and a good many LGBT priests. Most Protestant churches and non-Orthodox Judaism at least have women clergy. Sufi Islam makes no distinctions of gender. The LDS Church, Baptists, Roman Catholics and conservative Muslims are the conspicuous hold-outs, but there are women's counter-movements among all of them.

[cleanhippie]

14. Those changes are happening due to societal pressure and the inability to defend those beliefs

with reality. It is only because of our greater understanding of the natural world that directly contradicts the non-reality based beliefs that is causing these changes.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. That's true, basically they are caving in to secular ethics and morality...

reflected in the larger culture, because those in these religions realized their beliefs are unethical or immoral. Yet they will still claim their religions makes them moral.

[RainDog]

23. Those changes come about because people's reality shows them their belief group is wrong

Which is my point in the OP.

People are indoctrinated into most religions before they have the capacity to distinguish fact from fiction. And they are told those things by trusted elders. The church is not a family where people can say... oh, grandpa, you're such a freaking sexist asshole! the only reason I associate with you is that I have to b/c you're my family member.

The church is a institution that exists separately from any organic relationship in society. It is a construct that continues as it does because of a social agreement to allow it to continue.

Why continue to agree with organizations that cannot understand that their thinking contributes to human rights violations against various groups?

What's the value in an association with such a group - people disconnect their local experience with the actual experience of the exercise of power that is part of their association.

But that association contributes to harm that some within it supposedly claim they oppose. It boggles my mind.

[dimbear]

16. In a nutshell, Joseph Smith was a conman. He was caught flatfooted in fakery and deceit.

That has not significantly embarrassed or constricted Mormonism.

That's the takeaway for me.

[RainDog]

18. I don't see any difference between Mormonism and other belief systems

that's the takeaway for me.

Why would an institution that claims to represent a man who spoke for the poor and told the rich to give away all they own have enough of a portfolio to rival many nations? If that religion were anything other than a con to keep those in power and luxury as they are, why doesn't that church sell off its holdings and actually give it to the poor instead of asking working people to give money to it?

Reminds me of serfdom - and, in fact, churches work on that same model, more or less.

[cbayer]

20. Many fundamentalist christians aren't seeing the difference either

these days, either, because it is fitting their political agenda.

The inability to separate the chafe from the wheat is often driven by a need to only see the chafe.

[RainDog]

22. Fundamenalists are part of the same group

Fundamentalists have never accepted Mormonism as valid. Nothing new in that - it's not just their political agenda - it's their cultural agenda and part of their dogma.

The point is that the organizations themselves cannot withstand scrutiny. The turning point in democracy in the western world was when the French separated the church from the state and stripped the institution of its wealth. They confiscated the wealth of the church to keep the church from helping to fund royalists - because the church was never on the side of democracy. The church was always on the side of power and repression. The church was the biggest feudal landlord in France and as abusive of an institution as the monarchy.

We're at the same point in the U.S. today - the church - the oppressive power of organized conservative belief - has sided with power again and again and has continued to hawk beliefs that are archaic compared to the cultural understanding of the world that is based upon the idea of progress and an increase in human rights.

So what if some people within the organization do some good - if the organization itself, at the level of the exericise of power, is so corrupt it undermines the very ideas it is supposed to uphold?

[cbayer]

25. You are doing too much lumping and no splitting.

If you are unaware of the liberal/progressive arms of many religions practiced in this country, then I can see how you can reach your general conclusions.

Did you miss the civil rights movement?

[RainDog]

27. How do you want to split it?

You're saying that, because, 50 years ago, people with no power outside of a particular social institution used that institution politically - then it's now okay for some of those same religions to pretend that creationism is valid? Sorry, but that doesn't work for me because a belief in creationism HURTS the people who are taught that belief and impacts their lives in negative ways - because it is the equivalent of cult-think. It must dismiss every bit of science over the last 100-plus years - that's harmful for people's educational advancement and their standing in society - b/c such a belief is a signifier for someone who has not critically examined evidence. The question then becomes... do creationist believers lack the capacity to understand the data or do they lack the capacity to question the status quo? Are either of those questions good ones for employers to ask? The only way such teaching doesn't impact someone's professional life is if that person segregates him or herself within a community that reinforces the belief.

Why are there "liberal/progressive" arms of institutions when the institution itself, again, at the level where power is exercised to control dogma, etc... why do those who know the dogma is bullshit continue to associate with the group?

Why not form a separate group with dogma that reflects their values? Why belong to a fundamentalist church if they teach lies about the very nature of reality (i.e. science?)

What value does such an institution have other than a social club?

[cbayer]

28. You have already made up your mind here.

See you around the campfire.

[RainDog]

29. LOL

Yes, I have made up my mind.

I have decided that I think it's unethical for people who know that women aren't second-class citizens, or who know that homosexuals deserve the right to enter into family contracts just as heterosexuals do to associate with those institutions because their association continues to lend power to that organization.

Nothing you have said counters that. The only thing you have said is this is personal, that there are progressive and liberals who choose to associate with organizations that, at the level of the exercise of that entity's power in this world - choose to oppress people.

Because they choose to continue such an association, it's okay that they do, because they do. That's the argument.

Those who think they are operating from an ethical foundation are operating from cultural and social conformity and comfort.