DiscussMormonism.com

I was reading through the "Based Solely on Evidences" thread http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=26062 and I saw one particular post from Deborah that stuck out.

She said,

Deborah wrote:It is hard to answer the question, because I have had a spiritual witness over and over. However, sometimes when I read the Book of Mormon or the D&C or hear some of the historical accounts from faithful members I see not just a spiritual confirmation but very practical and logical reasons for believing that Joseph was a prophet. The doctrine makes too much sense when compared with other faiths. The organization is just too, well organized, to have come form a self-educated farm boy. So I guess you could say my spiritual testimony has been confirmed over and over by the evidence I've seen. I don't give much weight at all to the "evidence" presented by those who have an agenda of hate toward the church.

The part in bold is what I want to ask about.

First, I'd argue that it makes more sense than traditional Christianity. I think Mormon doctrine is much more difficult.

But, for the sake of this thread, lets pretend that it does make more sense.

So, basically, just because the ridiculous teachings of the Mormon church are less ridiculous than the teachings of mainstream Christianity, is that a valid point in determining the truthfulness of the church?

First, there is no obvious reason why revelation should have ceased. Continuing revelation creates a certain elasticity that could help the LDS Church change for the better. I believe women should have the priesthood, and if the LDS prophets believed that God was telling them to do the same thing, viola!, it could be changed.

Second, traditional Christian theology is confusing. Mormon theology is also complex, but its basic principles don't require a degree in Late Antique philosophy to master.

Third, the Book of Mormon, if you can wade through it, is actually more effective at evoking Christian conversion experiences than the Bible. I mean, just think of the Moroni 10 promise. Where does the Bible have anything close to that?

Fourth, the basic metaphor for the human being's relationship with God, in orthodox Christianity, is based on the human relationship between master and slave, or emperor and subject. After LDS theosis became more democratized, the possibility to become gods was extended to everyone who would strive to attain that goal. The basic metaphor for the relationship between God and humankind in Mormonism, which is emphasized more than in Christianity, is parent to child--much better than the other options.

Fifth, Mormonism presented the possibility of consensus through prayer and meaningful voting. It never came close to attaining that democratic ideal, and in some ways it is as bad or worse than ever today, but there is a thread of egalitarian spirit in Mormonism that could really be siezed upon by someone. In Christianity the divide between deity and human, or ministry and laity, does not offer this opportunity in the same way.

Sixth, the feminine principle of deity came closer to emerging in Mormonism than in the bulk of Christian sects. Only Mariolatry comes close, and Mary is still not a member of the godhead, in any case. Heavenly Mother has been suppressed in Mormondom, but the idea is there, and a parity between female and male elements of deity makes way more sense than the inequality that exists in orthodox Christian theology.

I could go on and on.... I think the LDS Church is in a particularly bad place right now, and I do not participate in it largely for that reason. But, I think buried in it are some real positives.

Thanks for the post, Trevor. I slightly agree with some of your "positives," but still find it interesting that those have never historically been exploited by Mormon leaders (if not denied and actively supressed). Why this has been the case, and what that portends for the future, would be an interesting discussion. I think I would make the counter arguement that the "negatives' in the contradictory stew of Mormon doctrine do not just outwiegh the "positives" but are explicitly in opposition to them.

Sorry for the cryptic remarks....its threatening rain and I'm typing outside.

Blixa wrote:Thanks for the post, Trevor. I slightly agree with some of your "positives," but still find it interesting that those have never historically been exploited by Mormon leaders (if not denied and actively supressed). Why this has been the case, and what that portends for the future, would be an interesting discussion. I think I would make the counter arguement that the "negatives' in the contradictory stew of Mormon doctrine do not just outwiegh the "positives" but are explicitly in opposition to them.

I agree, Blixa, and I hasten to add that I do not believe that Mormonism is 'true' in the sense a TBM would. I see it as a mythological and social system. Nevertheless, I see some things in it that constitute, in my mind, a real improvement over traditional Christianity or at least the potential for such an improvement. This, of course, is my opinion, and it is based on my perspective and values. I am sure a Christian would take me to task for these claims.

The doctrine makes too much sense when compared with other faiths.

in my opinion, the LDS church is the most confusing, conflicted, convoluted, doctrine of any religion of which I know...

I means seriously, no one even knows what is the doctrine. It can be anything and everything, and nothing depending on the person, place, time, prophet, interpretation, and law.

~dancer~

Making more sense should have at least some value in determining truthfulness. By sense we mean a sort of coherence and clarity which means we see clear and noncontradictory description. It also suggest a lack of being aware of conflict with evidence and other understandings we hold true.

So if clarity means coherent, fiting the evidence and making a meaningful synthesis of what we know it should be a good indicator or truth. But the phrase, "being aware of conflict" contains the problem. We may not be all that aware of all the conflicts that are possible. In the subject of religion it is often seen that people are not always aware of conflicts. It is also often clear that people see clarity in the religous system they are brought up in or have spent more time involved with far more easily than they see it in other groups.


Trevors comments are an excellent illustration. I have no doubt he is genuinely aware of other teachings outside of Mormonism. I do not doubt he is intelligent and capable of comparison. His comments sound so Mormo-centric to my ears. I see the comparison points he makes in almost completely opposite ways. I think Trevor is aware of that possiblity. It might take fifteen years or more outside of the church to actually start seeing some basic religious questions from non Mormon starting points. Some thought habits just run deep.

That is a bit frustrating for the hope of making good objective comparisons between all the religous possiblities. We personally do not have the time in a lifetime to make very many such comparisons at the depth of shifting foundational assumptions.

huckelberry wrote:Making more sense should have at least some value in determining truthfulness. By sense we mean a sort of coherence and clarity which means we see clear and noncontradictory description. It also suggest a lack of being aware of conflict with evidence and other understandings we hold true.

So if clarity means coherent, fiting the evidence and making a meaningful synthesis of what we know it should be a good indicator or truth. But the phrase, "being aware of conflict" contains the problem. We may not be all that aware of all the conflicts that are possible. In the subject of religion it is often seen that people are not always aware of conflicts. It is also often clear that people see clarity in the religous system they are brought up in or have spent more time involved with far more easily than they see it in other groups.


Trevors comments are an excellent illustration. I have no doubt he is genuinely aware of other teachings outside of Mormonism. I do not doubt he is intelligent and capable of comparison. His comments sound so Mormo-centric to my ears. I see the comparison points he makes in almost completely opposite ways. I think Trevor is aware of that possiblity. It might take fifteen years or more outside of the church to actually start seeing some basic religious questions from non Mormon starting points. Some thought habits just run deep.

That is a bit frustrating for the hope of making good objective comparisons between all the religous possiblities. We personally do not have the time in a lifetime to make very many such comparisons at the depth of shifting foundational assumptions.

I never saw much clarity or consistency in what I thought constituted Mormon doctrine even as an active TBM. When I found out that nobody really knows what's doctrine and what's not, I had an epiphany that I don't really need such a church.

Huck makes a good point - many things in Mormonism only seem to make more sense than traditional christianity if you don't continue to probe.

I was raised in traditional christianity, and Mormon doctrine - whoops, I mean teachings, har har - did seem to initially make more sense than what I'd been taught in mainstream christianity. For an easy example, take the trinity - that is very difficult to grasp. When Mormons point out that it doesn't make sense for Jesus to pray to himself, they are correct. It doesn't make sense. So the Mormon solution makes sense at first blush - they are separate people. And god was once a man. That seems to explain the origin of god, which is otherwise perplexing.

But of course these clarifications only work if you stop there, if you don't ask the next, natural questions - these clarifications only delay the inevitable confusion and mist. Once you start probing beyond the first step - ok, but was there an original god? How did it all start? And how was Jesus God without a body, if we all need bodies? And what is the Holy Ghost? - then you realize that Mormon teachings really don't, in the end, make any more sense than traditional christianity.

It only begins to make sense when you realize that the point of religion isn't about making sense at all.

beastie wrote:But of course these clarifications only work if you stop there, if you don't ask the next, natural questions - these clarifications only delay the inevitable confusion and mist. Once you start probing beyond the first step - ok, but was there an original god? How did it all start? And how was Jesus God without a body, if we all need bodies? And what is the Holy Ghost? - then you realize that Mormon teachings really don't, in the end, make any more sense than traditional christianity.

It only begins to make sense when you realize that the point of religion isn't about making sense at all.

Yes, religion is irrational in that it is founded on unverifiable propositions about the world, and any religion of the Abrahamic variety is bound to have plenty of them. After all, the Old Testament is full of (to use a disparaging term) 'fairytales,' and believers feel an obligation to make sense out of the nonsense therein. So explanations that are even more nonsensical take shape in a misguided effort to save the fairytales and make them respectable.

From one perspective, this is exactly what Mormonism is. Encountering the apparent absurdity of various Christian concepts, and also a variety of unanswered questions, Joseph Smith and his colleagues sought to make sense out of it through new revelations. Some contemporary Mormons continue to struggle with the fact that these answers still don't cut it.

The real howler in Christianity, in my opinion, has to be the atonement, which presents us with the idea that an omnipotent God was only capable of saving people from their fallen humanity by sacrificing his God-Son Jesus. First, the fact that the whole edifice is contingent upon the fairytale of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is quite a hurdle. It also boggles the mind why an all-powerful deity would need to use such means to save his own creations, when he is capable of forgiving them himself. Mormonism shifted to the idea of a God of limited power, which would help explain why God was incapable of forgiving the sins himself (I guess), but then people like McConkie seemed to fear that a God of limited power would not be able to save anyone.

This last sentence carries the clue to why much of Mormon theology ultimately failed. The problems of Christian theology required some radical solutions. Joseph Smith and others took first steps in the direction of addressing them. Arguably Brigham Young took the initial, tentative second steps. For example, it was he who called the Garden of Eden scenario a 'fairy story' I believe. In the later 19th century some Mormons were beginning to see the illogical nature of the atonement and argue against its necessity. In the end, however, the immense gravitational field of Christian tradition pulled them back in.

Today Mormonism sits mostly in the bathtub of garden-variety Christian belief, with a few limbs hanging out of the water. The compromise-result in some ways makes less sense than before.

If I try to think in a bit more detail about foundational habits of understanding I find that I think some are more easily changed than others. I also notice that we probably each have a variety of the things to deal with. I learned scientific viewpoints as a child fascinated with all things scientific. I did not persue sceince as a career but it remains a foundational viewpont for me. As a result I do not have anyway to incorporate literal readings of scriptural folktales into my beliefs. I do not even know how to think of seven day creation as literal. A literal flood is long gone and with it I cannot help but see nonliteral storytelling as a significant part of the Old Testament. If I consider it I really have no clue how a young earth belief is held in the mind. It is too foreign to me.

I am sure there are some Mormon assumptions that people can set aside easily. The subject has been one at the back of mind in participating in Mormon message boards. I have been too long away from the LDS church to have a deep committment to the arguements. I was curious what LDS respond but heard nothing to incline me to change my unbelief. Yet I ask myself what assumptions I might still hold which are LDS. I ask myself what assumptions people hold which make it difficult to understand other points of view.

An LDS view which I notice is that religion is a revealed body of relieble doctrine. It may be easy to see that religions may fail to be this. It is harder to consider that they may in fact shouldn't be that but something else instead. Further it may be fairly easy to see the alternative. It is I suspect (perhaps as fitting my own experience) harder to take seriously a view of religion not centered on possessing a special body of revealed truth. Such a view looks to wishy washy. It lacks that Mormon confidence in being the real thing.

Mormons may not be the only group of people uncomfortable concieving of faith as an ongoing learning experience flowing from puting some basic faith hypotheses into action. People prefer a Bible consisting of Gods final explanation of everything instead of peoples experience in responding to Gods call. However this shift in assumptions is possible.

Trevor, your comments about the atonement reflect something which at least to my mind is a Mormon teaching which influences people who leave the church long after they leave due to its emotional attraction. What I am thinking of is the idea that we are naturally connected to God as children and species. In that view the fall into sin is almost like an experiment that is less than our real self. Forgiveness should be easier because we are really better than our errors. If one sets those assumptions aside and think of people as creations, animals who are in the process of becoming something more than chimpanzees then our turn toward sin is what we really are. More than forgivenses is needed we need to actually become something different. In my mind the atonement is the one thing in Christianity which makes the most sense and is the only reason to consider the faith. But the atonement is much more than a legal trick establishing an out for divine spiritys temporarily caught in sin. It is the foundation for participating in the divine community and thus growing into something more and better than the fighting primates we naturally are. It is in the process of sharing forgiivenss with our community that we can become something more. I do see that as happending at one time to special individuals. It si something which the entire human race is particpating in. It is something to my view which in the context of atonement all the variety of humans can contiribute some to the the whole.