New Pew research shows LDS retention rate worsening for those raised LDS

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Welcome back, Fibber! Let's see if this time around you’ll actually respect and follow the board tules.

[Limnor]

Holding a personal belief in the afterlife that drives a person to be a better family member, a better member of society, a nicer neighbour etc is fine. When you start adding a label to it “I’m a Christian” “I’m a Muslim” etc you get tribalism creeping in. You get “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You get people taking charge and telling others what to believe etc. Organised religion poisons the very thing it’s supposed to enhance. And simply pointing out those times when an organised religion does something beneficial to others doesn’t negate the point, in same way that a wife-beating husband doesn’t offset the harm by bringing flowers home occasionally. Jimmy Savile (a now-deceased UK radio and tv personality) raised millions of pounds for charity. Lots of examples of good deeds. People lauded him for it. He was also a serial child sex abuser. Abusing the most vulnerable in society. Do his good deeds offset the harm he did?

I agree with most of this. Good deeds don’t somehow outweigh abuse. If a church harms people, charity work doesn’t make that abuse go away.

But there is probably more to explore. I don’t really think of the afterlife as a reward for good behavior. For me, eternal life isn’t something you earn now and collect after you die. It’s something that you have now.

The Christian idea, at least as I understand it, is that the life of Christ becomes present in you and begins changing the kind of person you are. The point isn’t, “Be good so you get heaven.” It’s closer to, “His life is in you, so live out of that life.”

That also makes organized religion subordinate to the kind of life it helps to produce. Institutions and their leadership shouldn’t be the source of that life, they should be more like the servant to the members. And I think that’s should apply across all models of government, that authority exists to serve, not to become and end in itself. I think we may agree more than disagree about that concept.

[I Have Questions]

Holding a personal belief in the afterlife that drives a person to be a better family member, a better member of society, a nicer neighbour etc is fine. When you start adding a label to it “I’m a Christian” “I’m a Muslim” etc you get tribalism creeping in. You get “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You get people taking charge and telling others what to believe etc. Organised religion poisons the very thing it’s supposed to enhance. And simply pointing out those times when an organised religion does something beneficial to others doesn’t negate the point, in same way that a wife-beating husband doesn’t offset the harm by bringing flowers home occasionally. Jimmy Savile (a now-deceased UK radio and tv personality) raised millions of pounds for charity. Lots of examples of good deeds. People lauded him for it. He was also a serial child sex abuser. Abusing the most vulnerable in society. Do his good deeds offset the harm he did?

I agree with most of this. Good deeds don’t somehow outweigh abuse. If a church harms people, charity work doesn’t make that abuse go away.

But there is probably more to explore. I don’t really think of the afterlife as a reward for good behavior. For me, eternal life isn’t something you earn now and collect after you die. It’s something that you have now.

The Christian idea, at least as I understand it, is that the life of Christ becomes present in you and begins changing the kind of person you are. The point isn’t, “Be good so you get heaven.” It’s closer to, “His life is in you, so live out of that life.”

That also makes organized religion subordinate to the kind of life it helps to produce. Institutions and their leadership shouldn’t be the source of that life, they should be more like the servant to the members. And I think that’s should apply across all models of government, that authority exists to serve, not to become and end in itself. I think we may agree more than disagree about that concept.

I’m not really thinking as prescriptively as you seem to be. My point really is that organised religion doesn’t make people better per se. And fundamentally that’s what organised religions declare they do. But the objective evidence does not support that. On that basis, organised religion is a sham. It’s always been a sham. It will always be a sham.

As for authority existing to serve, hasn’t that become an oxymoron, particularly in religion?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

My point really is that organised religion doesn’t make people better per se. And fundamentally that’s what organised religions declare they do. But the objective evidence does not support that. On that basis, organised religion is a sham. It’s always been a sham. It will always be a sham. As for authority existing to serve, hasn’t that become an oxymoron, particularly in religion?

Mormonism certainly doesn’t make better people, but it definitely gives them massive egos for believing they are.

[Limnor]

I’m not really thinking as prescriptively as you seem to be. My point really is that organised religion doesn’t make people better per se. And fundamentally that’s what organised religions declare they do. But the objective evidence does not support that. On that basis, organised religion is a sham. It’s always been a sham. It will always be a sham.

As for authority existing to serve, hasn’t that become an oxymoron, particularly in religion?

I think I’m closer to you than you may think. I don’t believe organized religion makes people better just because they are organized or religious. Membership, attendance, ordinances, tithes, none of those automatically produce better people.

And yes, while I think of “authority existing to serve” as an ideal, I share your pessimism about the reality in practice.

[I Have Questions]

The Christian idea, at least as I understand it, is that the life of Christ becomes present in you and begins changing the kind of person you are. The point isn’t, “Be good so you get heaven.” It’s closer to, “His life is in you, so live out of that life.”

That sounds nice in principle doesn’t it. But you won’t find that in practice. People might say they are a Christian, but only as a subordinate to whatever sect they attach to. You’ll hear “Mormons are Christians” but you won’t hear “Christians are Mormons”. Because the organisation takes the superiority over the general belief label. And unfortunately within Mormonism in particular, the point is precisely “Be good so you get to heaven”. Mormons call it (now) “The Covenant Path”. It’s about being Mormon, rather than Christian. And I think that’s true of every organised religion. They want brand loyalty more than they want people practicing Christianity.

[Limnor]

People might say they are a Christian, but only as a subordinate to whatever sect they attach to. You’ll hear “Mormons are Christians” but you won’t hear “Christians are Mormons”. Because the organisation takes the superiority over the general belief label. And unfortunately within Mormonism in particular, the point is precisely “Be good so you get to heaven”. Mormons call it (now) “The Covenant Path”. It’s about being Mormon, rather than Christian. And I think that’s true of every organised religion. They want brand loyalty more than they want people practicing Christianity.

I’ve mostly abandoned organized religion for the same reasons you’re describing. What I haven’t abandoned is the idea that Christ can actually be present in a person. That “Christ in you” is more than a religious affiliation. That’s really the part I still believe.

[I Have Questions]

People might say they are a Christian, but only as a subordinate to whatever sect they attach to. You’ll hear “Mormons are Christians” but you won’t hear “Christians are Mormons”. Because the organisation takes the superiority over the general belief label. And unfortunately within Mormonism in particular, the point is precisely “Be good so you get to heaven”. Mormons call it (now) “The Covenant Path”. It’s about being Mormon, rather than Christian. And I think that’s true of every organised religion. They want brand loyalty more than they want people practicing Christianity.

I’ve mostly abandoned organized religion for the same reasons you’re describing. What I haven’t abandoned is the idea that Christ can actually be present in a person. That “Christ in you” is more than a religious affiliation. That’s really the part I still believe.

Can you expand on that a little? I’m interested in understanding what you think that means, in practice, and also how you see Christ historically.

[huckelberry]

Welcome back, Fibber! Let's see if this time around you’ll actually respect and follow the board tules.

Fibber???
Not really a gentlemanly welcome.