Why I don't care about polygamy, the B of A scrolls, B of M

[SeattleUte]

Horses, etc.

To me it's very simple. In terms of spirituality the Western world is divided into two groups: those who accept the Hebrew model for God, and those that don't.

[I think you know what I mean by the Hebrew model for God. If you don't, here is a brief explanation: Out of the milieu of earliest Western civilization in the ancient Middle East and Misopotamia, there emerged a tiny, seemingly insignificant kingdom (seemingly at that time, that is), that adhered to a radically unique, even subversive concept of the divine—a single, jealous God with human attributes (a propensity to anger, and for sadness and disappointment, etc.) who made a covenant with His chosen people (these Hebrews) that certain benefits would inure to them if they followed His commandments. Further, inherent in this concept of the divine is the tenet that God communicates in subtle spiritual ways to all His chosen people, and more explicitly to special representatives of His chosen people. Originally, His chosen people were the Hebrews, freed from bondage in Egypt, and passing through the waters of the Red Sea and one day on to Canaan, their promised land. Later, after the advent of Christ, the Hebrews’ original idea exploded in popularity as the chosen people became all those who passed through the waters of baptism, and professed faith in Christ.

Christianity’s eventually explosive popularity was partly due to Hebreism’s original concept of God being enriched by Greek philosophy. Conditions in the Holy Land were ideal for this fusing considering that since Alexander the Great, Greek culture (including Romanized Greek clulture) had been predominant in the area, as the Hebrews stubbornly clung to their longstanding outlook and story of their interaction with God.

To many of us who grew up in the West—certainly those of us raised as Mormons—the Hebrews’ original concept of God (after millennia) has become so ingrained that we took it for granted that this was the only possible manifestation and character of the divine. It seemed intuitive and right; even allowing for the possibility of there being no God, it still has never occurred to many Americans that God could be anything other than (generally) as the Hebrews taught us.]

I include in the first group all believing Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, what have you, and in the second, everything from Atheists to those who have rejected participation in any organized religion because they believe literal acceptance of any faith's precepts is personally impractical because of the irrationality or implausibility of those precepts, yet they continue to vaguely believe in a deity on aesthetic principles if nothing else.

The problem that many raised Mormons run into when they reject their Mormon faith is that they go on presuming that the Hebrew model is the only available one for God. This is understandable because this model for God is so deeply ingrained in our culture it's virtually embedded in our DNA. Thus many apostates become expert in minutia about the Book of Abraham scrolls, anthropological and natural evidence contradicting interpretations of the Book of Mormon that have been accepted since inception of the Church, etc. Why stop there? Ever consider whether the Bible would withstand rigorous and objective scrutiny any better than the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.? Of course everyone has, and of course it wouldn't.

Thus those who reject a literal faith in Mormonism really should be critiquing not just Mormonism but the Hebrew model for God itself. They may decide, as I have, that the Hebrew model seems patently implausible, but it has served some sublimely potent, positive purpose in the story of mankind that is to a large extent inexplicable (yes, it is at best a net benefit since the Hebrew model has had its drawbacks).

Over the years it's become clear to me that Mormons (including myself) demonstrate a case of arrested development. In the Eitheenth and Nineteenth Centuries, in the latter stages of the Enlightenment, there was in Europe and the United States a great intellectual ferment generated by addressing this question of the legitimacy of the Hebrew model for God. This is what gave rise to such renown philosphers as Kant, Neitchze, Darwin (yes, I think he was a philospher too), and others. Joseph Smith was primarily reacting to this in my view.

Meanwhile, as Mormonsim grew the mainstream decided that the Hebrew model was implausible. No great philosphers have been born for a hundred years or so, have they? This is why. The great philosophical questions seemingly have been settled. Thus, you have half the people going to church in Europe and the U.S. blue states as you did even fifty years ago. After the Hebrew model was ascendant, even apparently triumphant, for 1700 years, it is now in serios decline. Mormonism, the Southeastern U.S., third-world Catholicism, and Islam represent its final strongholds. Despite alarmist statements by secular humanists about a rising tide of theocracy, it's clear that in the long run the Hebrew model is in decline and may ultimately be in for extinction. The seeming radicalization and mobilization of the U.S. Christian right is really a last ditch digging in for survival.

Thus, what Waters calls an impending collision between Mormonism and modern society is really Mormonism finally experiencing what the rest of the world experienced beginning up to 300 years ago and has (seemingly) long been settled in the mainstream.

This is my opinion, anyway.

[tooblue]

One principle flaw in your observation is the notion that Mormonism may be lumped together with other Christian sects in their understanding and subsequent systematic dissemination of what you call the Hebrew model of God. While I agree that, in a superficial sense, what you argue is accurate, the reality is it is so far from truth that any and all estimations, based upon such a viewpoint, of collisions and future cultural positioning of Mormonism lacks credibility.

Mormon theology will NEVER be accepted by prevailing mainstream Christianity as viable, principally because it is so radically different than the base model created by the Holy Roman church and adopted and practiced by all divergent modern Christian sects to varying degrees. Therefore, Mormonism’s place in society will never be one of broad acceptance; ultimately it will be relegated to subsist as a sub context of the greater American Empire’s history.

Such a reality in and of itself is evidence alone that Mormon theology is in fact not merely an aberration of “Hebraism’s original concept of God”. Joseph Smith was not merely reacting he was in fact the great philosopher of our modern time. You need only delve into his discourses, wonder at his political and social views (and blunders) and at the very least read a few select hymns sung with regularity in Mormon congregations to this very day. Consider the details, spoken and unspoken … consider them for what they are; different, radical, so much so that they often moved otherwise sensible humans to protest and even violence.

It is far too convenient to label Mormonism a troglodyte of Hebrew and Christian evolution. If that makes it easier for you to rationalize abandonment of it’s tenants and teachings so be it. The role the church will play in the course of American and the worlds history is yet to be determined … I for one look forward to the collisions!

In regards to polygamy, resistance to its legalization may very well be one of the greatest ironies I will ever witness … but of course who’s to say, the church will resist it :wink:

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

One principle flaw in your observation is the notion that Mormonism may be lumped together with other Christian sects in their understanding and subsequent systematic dissemination of what you call the Hebrew model of God. While I agree that, in a superficial sense, what you argue is accurate, the reality is it is so far from truth that any and all estimations, based upon such a viewpoint, of collisions and future cultural positioning of Mormonism lacks credibility.

Mormon theology will NEVER be accepted by prevailing mainstream Christianity as viable, principally because it is so radically different than the base model created by the Holy Roman church and adopted and practiced by all divergent modern Christian sects to varying degrees. Therefore, Mormonism’s place in society will never be one of broad acceptance; ultimately it will be relegated to subsist as a sub context of the greater American Empire’s history.

Such a reality in and of itself is evidence alone that Mormon theology is in fact not merely an aberration of “Hebraism’s original concept of God”. Joseph Smith was not merely reacting he was in fact the great philosopher of our modern time. You need only delve into his discourses, wonder at his political and social views (and blunders) and at the very least read a few select hymns sung with regularity in Mormon congregations to this very day. Consider the details, spoken and unspoken … consider them for what they are; different, radical, so much so that they often moved otherwise sensible humans to protest and even violence.

It is far too convenient to label Mormonism a troglodyte of Hebrew and Christian evolution. If that makes it easier for you to rationalize abandonment of it’s tenants and teachings so be it. The role the church will play in the course of American and the worlds history is yet to be determined … I for one look forward to the collisions!

In regards to polygamy, resistance to its legalization may very well be one of the greatest ironies I will ever witness … but of course who’s to say, the church will resist it :wink:

What you're describing is your religious faith, which places you firmly within the first group. I respect that. In fact, as I suggested above, people of the first group have served a critical role in the progress of our civilization to date, needless to say, which is a good thing. Whether the first group members are now cultural rhinos or Siberian tigers isn't completely clear right now, but I fear this may be the case. It would be interesting to live long enough to see the full development of these events.

[Archaea]

This is a fascinating expose, but it is very two-dimensional, which by nature of its inaccuracy falls flat on its face.

Restating the argument, it runs this way: there are two base camps of thought about how the world and cosmos operate (1) those based on Hebraic concept of God, and (2) secular humanists. Seattle limits these groups for the western world, and then posits that the philosophers helped us break out of the strangleholds of Hebraic concepts into a more enlightened state of secular humanism.

Well, as I am certain Seattle recognizes, his world he just created is a mythical world, not reality. We live in a more complex philosophical world, a world of differential calculus, not Euclidian geometry.

First, the Hebraic world was never one of consensus. If one examines Jewish intellectuals alone, no one agrees or agreed. If Seattle is only arguing, a one on one relationship with God was not universally accepted even by Jewish intellectuals.

Second, enlightenment was not solely are response to the Hebraic concept of God, but simply man's search for knowledge in many disciplines. And it's not true that those philosophers cited by Seattle universally rejected the Hebraic concept of God, but probably have done much to refine what areas are the responsibility of science and what the parametees of religion.

What is philosophy? It started off broader than it is today. Metaphsics, beyond physics. Descartes tried to hypthesize about some organ in the brain the linked the spiritual with the physical. Plato and Aristotle posited many things which weren't true.

It is simply a false statement that secular humanism is the advanced state of knowledge that has supplanted its predecessor. Knowledge of the physical world is not really the realm of most spiritual guidance, but rather a moral philosophy is the realm of spiritualism. We cannot ignore the physical world, but the two can live together in harmony and they are not mutually exclusive. That seems to be the basic argument of secular humanism, but since it is a vacuum, devoid any real substance, it is my view, it will die as truth continues to emerge, and a new contemporary philosophy will emerge. Meanwhile, we troglodite Hebraic concepts of God will continue to thrive and learn more of the world, inculcating all aspects of truth, evolving as it were, independent of the restraints of one secular philosophy over another.

[tooblue]

Faith is relative … my faith may be equated with Judeo Christian ideology, yet it is no more dogmatic than the atheist or agnostics faith –for their faith is as much a religion in every sense of the meaning attached to the word.

An atheists declaration that there is no God is no more or less a definition of God than a Christian’s assertion that there is a God. Furthermore the agnostics view that it is impossible to know if God exists or to doubt singularly correct questions is no more or less profound a dogma than an Mormon’s assertion that one can know for a certainty themselves that there is a God.

In other words I spoke of my faith in response to --what I might determine, according to mine own understanding-- an article of your faith.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Faith is relative … my faith may be equated with Judeo Christian ideology, yet it is no more dogmatic than the atheist or agnostics faith –for their faith is as much a religion in every sense of the meaning attached to the word.

That just couldn't be more false. How can you assert that an atheist or an agnostic demonstrates faith? They are precisely defined by their lack of faith. If you tell me that the world was created by and is currently overseen by a giant blue squirrel that lives on Neptune, I will tell you that I do not believe you. My statement to you would not be dogmatic, nor would it constitute some sort of faith or religion. It would simply be a refusal to believe something for which there is no evidence.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

That just couldn't be more false. How can you assert that an atheist or an agnostic demonstrates faith? They are precisely defined by their lack of faith. If you tell me that the world was created by and is currently overseen by a giant blue squirrel that lives on Neptune, I will tell you that I do not believe you. My statement to you would not be dogmatic, nor would it constitute some sort of faith or religion. It would simply be a refusal to believe something for which there is no evidence.

Your very answer is demonstrative of the kind of faith required ... how do you know you are inteligent enough to discern that a giant blue squirrel on Neptune did not create this world?

That's placing a lot of faith in your own cognative abilities, therefore can it not be argued that your cognative abilities are in fact your God? In turn we could then label your faith the religion of nonsequiturism.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Your very answer is demonstrative of the kind of faith required ... how do you know you are inteligent enough to discern that a giant blue squirrel on Neptune did not create this world?

That's placing a lot of faith in your own cognative abilities, therefore cannot it not be argued that your cognative abilities are in fact your God? In turn we could then label your faith the religion of nonsequiturism.

I think most atheists/agnostics are not arrogant enough to deny that anything is possible: maybe there is a God and maybe a giant blue squirrel inhabits Neptune. The atheist/agnostic simply chooses not to expend effort considering possibilities which do not seem plausible. By the same token, it might be possible that I could eventually hook up with Angelina Jolie, but I'm not going to spend a lot of my free time picking out china patterns.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I think most atheists/agnostics are not arrogant enough to deny that anything is possible: maybe there is a God and maybe a giant blue squirrel inhabits Neptune. The atheist/agnostic simply chooses not to expend effort considering possibilities which do not seem plausible. By the same token, it might be possible that I could eventually hook up with Angelina Jolie, but I'm not going to spend a lot of my free time picking out china patterns.

To me the choice not to expend effort considering possibilites is an act of faith ... in fact I can think of few better definitions.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

To me the choice not to expend effort considering possibilites is an act of faith ... in fact I can think of few better definitions.

I think non-sequitor is right here, but let me try to re-state what he is saying. Comparing an atheist point of view to religious faith is highly misleading, for much the same reason as comparing science to religion (which some religious folks such as my friend Waters are wont to do) is highly misleading.

So here's my restatement of what atheism means. Atheism is a discplined, deliberate refusal to believe anything that is not verified through the scientific method as true. If you can't demonstrate it through experimentation, through reason applied to sensory experience, it isn't there. But that is not to say an atheist rejects the possibility of there being some truth out there of which he is not aware. On the contrary. An atheist, at least a thinking atheist, is ever alert to to the possibility of newly discovered truth. But he refuses to speculate about it, refuses to have faith in it, until he sees it, smells it, touches it. So atheism is really the converse of faith. It is most emphatically not an act of faith.

The atheists' Bible ought to be the epic poem "The Way Things Are" by Lucretius, a Roman philospher who lived during Augustus' time. There the atheist's perspective is described much more eloquently and clearly than I ever could do. (A snippet from the poem is my signature on CB, partly as a tease.) As Harold Bloom attests, this often ignored work is in the pantheon with the best parts of the Bible, Shakespeare's King Lear, Dante's Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost, and the Illiad, as the greatest works of Western Civilization. It is an easy and delightful, even liberating, read.

Aetheism (as I understand it) used to be known as "materialism," and the perspective was refined by Epicurus and some of his forebears whose writings are essentially lost.

By the way, I don't regard myself an atheist. But I do appreciate the perspective and how it has been constantly misrepresented by religious folks.