The real reason for Mormonism's declining growth rate - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 10-20-2005, 06:05 PM

(I posted the following little essay on the fairboards and thought of doing so on Cougarboard, but thought better of it.)

All of the American mutations of protestantism (of which I consider Mormonism to be very much a part) are schizophrenic on the question of whether their faith can be empirically proven, or any attempt to do so should be made. This is because these sects grew up amid the undeniable fruits of the Enlightenment and its neo-Classical ethos--whose credo is things must be seen strictly as they are--but American Protestantism represents a negative reaction to the Enlightenment.

I count the following major movements as important push backs against the Enlightenment: The Protestant Reformation, neo-Protestantism (e.g., Southern Baptists) in the southern United States, Mormonism, the European Romantic movement in the Nineteenth Century, radical Islam, and Jewish fundamentalism. In Mormon circles the Reformation is primarily cast as a reaction to Catholic corruption, and a movement complementing the Rennaisance and in the direction of the Enlightenment. Not so; it was primarily a reaction against the Rennaisance and a move back toward fundamentalist, literal interpretation of scripture. This is the main reason why I think Max Weber overstates the importance of Protestantism--i.e., Protestantism's work ethic and materilism--in the rise of capitalism and the West's dominance.

The problem for the relgious fundamentalist reactions to the Enlightenment such as Mormonism is that science eviscerates their essentially literal, fundamentalist interpretation of their scripture. The problem becomes increasingly more accute as science progresses. So they're constantly oscillating between taking false comfort from "proofs" of their creed's veracity (which they intuitively know matters because of the Enlightenment's fruits), and the safe harbor of pure faith. Some thinkers have written that this inherant tension (between "Hebreism" and "Hellenism") in Western culture is the key to its vitality and success. Even Paul noted it: "The Jews look for a sign, the Greeks ask for a reason." It's an interesting issue; maybe THE issue of our day, perhaps the overarching issue of all time. I'm still not sure of the answer. It's an imporant one because what I see overall is the fundamentalist religious reactions to the Enlightenment (including Mormonism) in inexorable retreat. This is my explanation for Mormonism's flat growth rate.

Have you read the epic poem by Lucretius, "The Way Things Are"? It's very interesting to see how even before Christ, this same tension was at the heart of our civilization. Also amazing, as this poem demonstrates, is how the Greeks were able, just based on the naked eye and reason, to discern atomic theory, evolution, etc. Luretious and his inspiration Epicurus were re-discovered during the Enlightenment and served as inspiration and guidance to Newton, Darwin, etc. In a very real sense the Enlightenment prophets re-discovered previously revealed truths. Joseph Smith conciously or subconciously adopted Enlightenment rhetoric which seems to me critical to Mormonism's success.

Yes, fundamentalist religious reactions against the Enlightenment are putting up a good fight--in national and local elections, on city councils, on school boards, in the court rooms, in the class rooms, in the text books, and, with respect to Islam and some fundamentalist Christian fringe groups, by terrorism--but this fight has the earmarks of a desparate, last stand. And as the implosion of the mainline, Euro-Protestant religions (along with Catholicism's increasing fundamentalism in response to loss of membership, etc.) demonstrates, trying to come to terms with the Enlightenment by compromising too much of your fundamentals amounts to a suicide pact by religions.

NOTE: You might quibble with my categorization of Mormonism with Amerian neo-protestantism, on the basis of Mormonism's belief in modern revelation. But just ask Harold Bloom, who thinks they're more fundamentalist than Paul, more in line with James the Justs' outlook. Mormons are fundamentalists at their core. What could be more fundamentalist than a belief in modern revelation (vs. empiricism)? I submit this aspect of Mormonism is ultra fundamentalist, even somthing (among other charcteristics) that makes them somewhat resemble Islam.

Archaea · 10-20-2005, 06:23 PM

Methinks you don't understand Islam at all to make that comparison.

SeattleUte · 10-20-2005, 06:26 PM

When I have the time I'll draw some parallels for you.

Archaea · 10-20-2005, 06:33 PM

accepted large scale, I see no comparisons at all.

Islam, no central authority, no real 'revelation", built entirely on fear, not persuasion.

Yes, Mohammed's followers spoke of the greater and lesser jihad, but most of the teachings which are analogous flow from the intellectuals, not the spiritualists or the dogmatists which rule and govern modern Islam.

The Sword of Islam is also unique to Islam and Medevil Catholicism, but not related at all to Mormonism.

About the only parallel I can draw are some ties to rituals.

I'd love to see your effort, but Islam is wholly unrelated, and in my mind a truly barbaric religion.

SeattleUte · 10-20-2005, 06:47 PM

Here's a tame little comparison I posted on Cougarboard once:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...html?id=639996

Of course they're not the same and some of your distinctions are valid. In a nutshell, I see them both as religions inspired by Christianity that broke hard with the mother church, harkening back to the pre-Paul, pre-Greco influence gnostic roots of Christianity.

I trust Waters won't ban me for linking to CB.

Archaea · 10-20-2005, 06:54 PM

but at least I understand your parallels.

What is interesting to me is that Islam basically had one dynamic leader, and what we Westerners would consider nobodies.

Islam had a problem in that no Brigham Young arose. Yet still it prevailed.

Interesting note that Mohammed wasn't very persuasive as a leader, but he was a great warrior, hence the Warrior Prophet, and condemned to death all those who did not "convert".

It is interesting to me that Islam counts a billion adherents, yet there is no leadership. No central authority, no continuing claim to revelation.

It has a core of very, violent beliefs, and Muslim intellectuals get shouted down by its terroists.

SeattleUte · 10-20-2005, 07:00 PM

How about blood atonement? Mormonism is hardly pacifict. Indeed, the Book of Mormon exults the virtues of war as much as the Iliad. Whatever it is it isn't a cautionary tale agaisnt warfare. This is reflected in Mormons' prevailing political beliefs. I don't recall any passages in the BofM that brought to mind All Quiet on the Western Front.

Archaea · 10-20-2005, 07:03 PM

Church categorically rejects the concept of blood atonement.

bluegoose · 10-20-2005, 09:30 PM

Returning to the title of the topic...

Can it really be said "the decline of membership rates" in the church, especially when attempting to make a comparison to Islam?

What is the fastest growing religion in the world? My last check, it was Islam. And there's not even a close second.

What is the fastest growing Christian religion in America? My last check, and maybe this has changed recently, but LDS has been it for a long time.

Draw your parallels if you must, I've hear them all before. But I would hardly conclude that a decine in membership has any correlation to similarities with Islam.

SteelBlue · 10-20-2005, 10:44 PM

Maybe I read it wrong, but I didn't think that he stated that membership was declining because Mormonism was similar to Islam. His point seemed to be (on quick reading) that increasingly people of faith are finding it is difficult to reconcile faith and reason. I'm sure we've all felt that struggle on several issues. I thought this was a great explanation:

"The problem for the relgious fundamentalist reactions to the Enlightenment such as Mormonism is that science eviscerates their essentially literal, fundamentalist interpretation of their scripture. The problem becomes increasingly more accute as science progresses. So they're constantly oscillating between taking false comfort from "proofs" of their creed's veracity (which they intuitively know matters because of the Enlightenment's fruits), and the safe harbor of pure faith."

Any of us who served in Europe have already seen how large segments of the US population will think about religion in the near future.

10-20-2005, 06:05 PM	#1
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	The real reason for Mormonism's declining growth rate (I posted the following little essay on the fairboards and thought of doing so on Cougarboard, but thought better of it.) All of the American mutations of protestantism (of which I consider Mormonism to be very much a part) are schizophrenic on the question of whether their faith can be empirically proven, or any attempt to do so should be made. This is because these sects grew up amid the undeniable fruits of the Enlightenment and its neo-Classical ethos--whose credo is things must be seen strictly as they are--but American Protestantism represents a negative reaction to the Enlightenment. I count the following major movements as important push backs against the Enlightenment: The Protestant Reformation, neo-Protestantism (e.g., Southern Baptists) in the southern United States, Mormonism, the European Romantic movement in the Nineteenth Century, radical Islam, and Jewish fundamentalism. In Mormon circles the Reformation is primarily cast as a reaction to Catholic corruption, and a movement complementing the Rennaisance and in the direction of the Enlightenment. Not so; it was primarily a reaction against the Rennaisance and a move back toward fundamentalist, literal interpretation of scripture. This is the main reason why I think Max Weber overstates the importance of Protestantism--i.e., Protestantism's work ethic and materilism--in the rise of capitalism and the West's dominance. The problem for the relgious fundamentalist reactions to the Enlightenment such as Mormonism is that science eviscerates their essentially literal, fundamentalist interpretation of their scripture. The problem becomes increasingly more accute as science progresses. So they're constantly oscillating between taking false comfort from "proofs" of their creed's veracity (which they intuitively know matters because of the Enlightenment's fruits), and the safe harbor of pure faith. Some thinkers have written that this inherant tension (between "Hebreism" and "Hellenism") in Western culture is the key to its vitality and success. Even Paul noted it: "The Jews look for a sign, the Greeks ask for a reason." It's an interesting issue; maybe THE issue of our day, perhaps the overarching issue of all time. I'm still not sure of the answer. It's an imporant one because what I see overall is the fundamentalist religious reactions to the Enlightenment (including Mormonism) in inexorable retreat. This is my explanation for Mormonism's flat growth rate. Have you read the epic poem by Lucretius, "The Way Things Are"? It's very interesting to see how even before Christ, this same tension was at the heart of our civilization. Also amazing, as this poem demonstrates, is how the Greeks were able, just based on the naked eye and reason, to discern atomic theory, evolution, etc. Luretious and his inspiration Epicurus were re-discovered during the Enlightenment and served as inspiration and guidance to Newton, Darwin, etc. In a very real sense the Enlightenment prophets re-discovered previously revealed truths. Joseph Smith conciously or subconciously adopted Enlightenment rhetoric which seems to me critical to Mormonism's success. Yes, fundamentalist religious reactions against the Enlightenment are putting up a good fight--in national and local elections, on city councils, on school boards, in the court rooms, in the class rooms, in the text books, and, with respect to Islam and some fundamentalist Christian fringe groups, by terrorism--but this fight has the earmarks of a desparate, last stand. And as the implosion of the mainline, Euro-Protestant religions (along with Catholicism's increasing fundamentalism in response to loss of membership, etc.) demonstrates, trying to come to terms with the Enlightenment by compromising too much of your fundamentals amounts to a suicide pact by religions. NOTE: You might quibble with my categorization of Mormonism with Amerian neo-protestantism, on the basis of Mormonism's belief in modern revelation. But just ask Harold Bloom, who thinks they're more fundamentalist than Paul, more in line with James the Justs' outlook. Mormons are fundamentalists at their core. What could be more fundamentalist than a belief in modern revelation (vs. empiricism)? I submit this aspect of Mormonism is ultra fundamentalist, even somthing (among other charcteristics) that makes them somewhat resemble Islam. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

10-20-2005, 06:23 PM	#2
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	resembles Islam? Methinks you don't understand Islam at all to make that comparison. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

10-20-2005, 06:26 PM	#3
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Enlighten me, brother. When I have the time I'll draw some parallels for you. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

10-20-2005, 06:33 PM	#4
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Unless you resort to Sufism, which really isn't accepted large scale, I see no comparisons at all. Islam, no central authority, no real 'revelation", built entirely on fear, not persuasion. Yes, Mohammed's followers spoke of the greater and lesser jihad, but most of the teachings which are analogous flow from the intellectuals, not the spiritualists or the dogmatists which rule and govern modern Islam. The Sword of Islam is also unique to Islam and Medevil Catholicism, but not related at all to Mormonism. About the only parallel I can draw are some ties to rituals. I'd love to see your effort, but Islam is wholly unrelated, and in my mind a truly barbaric religion. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

10-20-2005, 06:47 PM	#5
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Islam & Mormonism Here's a tame little comparison I posted on Cougarboard once: http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...html?id=639996 Of course they're not the same and some of your distinctions are valid. In a nutshell, I see them both as religions inspired by Christianity that broke hard with the mother church, harkening back to the pre-Paul, pre-Greco influence gnostic roots of Christianity. I trust Waters won't ban me for linking to CB. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

10-20-2005, 06:54 PM	#6
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Superficial analysis, skin deep but at least I understand your parallels. What is interesting to me is that Islam basically had one dynamic leader, and what we Westerners would consider nobodies. Islam had a problem in that no Brigham Young arose. Yet still it prevailed. Interesting note that Mohammed wasn't very persuasive as a leader, but he was a great warrior, hence the Warrior Prophet, and condemned to death all those who did not "convert". It is interesting to me that Islam counts a billion adherents, yet there is no leadership. No central authority, no continuing claim to revelation. It has a core of very, violent beliefs, and Muslim intellectuals get shouted down by its terroists. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

10-20-2005, 07:00 PM	#7
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Violent beliefs How about blood atonement? Mormonism is hardly pacifict. Indeed, the Book of Mormon exults the virtues of war as much as the Iliad. Whatever it is it isn't a cautionary tale agaisnt warfare. This is reflected in Mormons' prevailing political beliefs. I don't recall any passages in the BofM that brought to mind All Quiet on the Western Front. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

10-20-2005, 07:03 PM	#8
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Except for Christ's atonement, the LDS Church categorically rejects the concept of blood atonement. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

10-20-2005, 09:30 PM	#9
bluegoose Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Northern California Posts: 2,919	Returning to the title of the topic... Can it really be said "the decline of membership rates" in the church, especially when attempting to make a comparison to Islam? What is the fastest growing religion in the world? My last check, it was Islam. And there's not even a close second. What is the fastest growing Christian religion in America? My last check, and maybe this has changed recently, but LDS has been it for a long time. Draw your parallels if you must, I've hear them all before. But I would hardly conclude that a decine in membership has any correlation to similarities with Islam.

10-20-2005, 10:44 PM	#10
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	Maybe I read it wrong, but I didn't think that he stated that membership was declining because Mormonism was similar to Islam. His point seemed to be (on quick reading) that increasingly people of faith are finding it is difficult to reconcile faith and reason. I'm sure we've all felt that struggle on several issues. I thought this was a great explanation: "The problem for the relgious fundamentalist reactions to the Enlightenment such as Mormonism is that science eviscerates their essentially literal, fundamentalist interpretation of their scripture. The problem becomes increasingly more accute as science progresses. So they're constantly oscillating between taking false comfort from "proofs" of their creed's veracity (which they intuitively know matters because of the Enlightenment's fruits), and the safe harbor of pure faith." Any of us who served in Europe have already seen how large segments of the US population will think about religion in the near future.