Religion is dead...how can Mormonism survive?

[Dr Exiled]

Ok so taking a different track on Mormonism...what if Mormon God is in his own universe? There is the possibility of a multiverse after all. So God, sits in an advanced universe on the lone planet within that universe housing life. If so, what of all those who once lived mortally on that planet who also became exalted? Do they live as lower level beings subject to him, or did he as the pre-eminent one acquire their old world for him and his servants and minions, while the other exalted into the highest level folks got transported to other universes to play the same roll as he? If not, then are we to assume that really only one person from our planet will get high enough to be God like our God is?

Is there any way to tease out Mormonism in a reasonable way?

I think you have to look at the author to tease out Mormonism in a reasonable way. At the time the above was invented, Joseph Smith's world was crashing down around him, he was being chased by Missouri process servers who wanted to take him back to Missouri to be hanged possibly and the Illinois political establishment was turning against him. So, he invents these grandiose doctrines placing himself next to God, he creates many different and secret power structures like the council of fifty, anointing himself king, and increasing his womanizing because his self image must prevail. He probably thought he was God already and had he lived longer might have declared it openly.

[dastardly stem]

I think you have to look at the author to tease out Mormonism in a reasonable way. At the time the above was invented, Joseph Smith's world was crashing down around him, he was being chased by Missouri process servers who wanted to take him back to Missouri to be hanged possibly and the Illinois political establishment was turning against him. So, he invents these grandiose doctrines placing himself next to God, he creates many different and secret power structures like the council of fifty, anointing himself king, and increasing his womanizing because his self image must prevail. He probably thought he was God already and had he lived longer might have declared it openly.

Good points. That is interesting considering what life might have been like for him at the time. His life does indicate that once you getting rolling with religious ideas you just have to keep on building on them.

[Physics Guy]

I think context plays into it too. As in, if one is speaking to a Christian and denies the Christians arguments or position on God, that one is not rejecting all possible Gods but the God that is being claimed by his/her opponent.

This is a very good point. The theory of reference is tricky enough even with ordinary subjects.

If someone who speaks of George Washington is sure that George Washington had wooden false teeth and never owned slaves, then did George Washington really exist, as they suppose him to have been? Or should we rather say that George Washington did exist but this person is wrong about some of his qualities?

What if someone not only thinks that Henry Ford invented the internal combustion engine, but in fact the only things they understand in connection with the words "Henry Ford" are "the American inventor of the internal combustion engine"? Did Henry Ford really exist, if you are speaking with this person? What they think "Henry Ford" means definitely did not exist: internal combustion engines were invented by a handful of Europeans. So it's not clear that this person really means to refer to the real Henry Ford when they mention his name. What they understand by the term "Henry Ford" is something that did not exist. Yet of course there really was a Henry Ford, who was American and who did invent things that had to do with internal combustion engines.

Similar difficulties certainly crop up with "God". That to which many people mean to refer, when they use the word "God", surely does not exist. On the other hand if there is a real Being who is even remotely of the kind that people mean when they say "God", then probably nobody really grasps what that Being is like. Does this mean that nobody is referring to the actual God when they say "God"? I don't think I'd go that far. Plenty of people refer to me by using my name, even though they don't know everything about me or even if they are mistaken about me in important ways. If they primarily mean to refer to the father of my children, or to the husband of my wife, or to the holder of my job, then I'd say they are referring to me, even if they have some seriously wrong ideas about me.

So I think it's a tricky business. There are some concepts of God—for example, the Mormon one—where I think I'd say that it's more likely that there is nothing which is anything like God at all, than that there is a God just like that one. But even talking with a Mormon I think I'd find it a more effective use of language to say that I agree with them that God probably exists, and I just have very different ideas from theirs about what God must be like. I'd decide on that way to use language about God with a Mormon in the same way that I would tell that person who was confused about Henry Ford that there was no American inventor of the internal combustion engine but that they still weren't so completely off base about the real Henry Ford.

[Philo Sofee]

In spades eh? I'll let that one slide... religious experience simply cannot be proven not viable. Experience is not up for investigation other than in the person with the experience. It is why nothing will ever truly refute religious experience and spirituality. It has nothing to do with logic. Experience does not rest on science and logic. The preeminence of religion in politics certainly does need to be examined and challenged, without question. But this has truly nothing to do with actual personal experience.

Sam Harris, yes, one of the four horsemen of the New Atheism, has demonstrated that, to use his own words in his new book, "Our world is dangerously riven by religious doctrines that all educated people should condemn, and yet there is more to understanding the human condition than science and secular culture generally admit." He further elaborates that it is entirely and desirable to have and improve one's spirituality! "Although my focus is on human subjectivity - I am, after all, talking about the nature of experience itself - all my assertions can be tested in the laboratory of your own life. In fact, my goal is to encourage you to do just that." (Sam Harris, "Waking Up," Simon & Schuster, 2014: 6-7). He even almost heinously proposes "There is a connection between scientific fact and spiritual wisdom, and it is more direct than most people suppose." (p. 8). "It is quite possible to lose one's sense of being a separate self and to experience a kind of boundless, open awareness - to feel, in other words, at one with the cosmos." (p. 43).

His entire premise is simple. The mystics say meditate and improve one's spirituality and life, and they were right. Meditation leads to increased spirituality, and Sam Harris has done so, and now so testifies it is accurate and a true description. The final say so against religion is not final, it's not even a decent say so against it. Sam Harris doesn't think so, and neither do I.

Take 2 (this one is shorter): ugh....

your mention of Waking Up reminded me of this:

Joseph Smith a lubidinous conman and crackpot was able to found a new religion on the claim that he unearthed the final revelations of God in the hallowed precincts of Manchestor, NY. Written in "reformed Egyptian" on golden plates. He decoded this text with the aid of magical seer stones which whether magic or not allowed Smith to produce an english version of God's word that was an embarrassing pastiche of plagiarism from the Bible and silly lies about Jesus' life in America. And yet the resulting nonsense of edifice and taboos survives to this day.

That was a brief mention of Mormonism in that book. Sorry for the aside, but I had the quote handy and your mention reminded me.

Anyway, I agree with him. I think you've smuggled in religion needlessly, as Sam Harris' point, as I took is, was to suggest we need no religion nor no God belief in order to have spiritual experience and enjoy a spiritual life. I agree with him on that. And to me this feels like a brief travel down the path of a distraction from the points I was focused on. But it's a good one and an interesting one. I'd agree with the way Harris puts it--"there is a connection between scientific fact and spiritual wisdom". I don't think it means on the basis of spiritual experience we can determine any God exists nor any religion is true. The problem with spiritual experience on this point is, they are personal, subjective, and wrought with biased interprtation and conclusion. One man's spiritual experience may mean to him that his religion is true, and he must join a war to fight off infidels. Another man's might mean to him that God showers him with grace and fortune beyond others in his way or view.

To travel a bit down this path, I'm going to be stupidly vulnerable and personal here. I had a spiritual experience recently. It was a terrible one that shook me. I saw the devil. He threatened me, hovering over me stuttering in motion back and forth, getting near to me and then moving away. He needed me to acknowledge he existed. I refused and he got more terrible and menacing. I grew more and more terrified until finally I cried out that he was real. He faded away and I shook myself free from the vision-state, similar to what I imagine Martin Harris felt as he cried out "it is enough" acting his part of the 3 witnesses. The difference for me is, I don't think I"m on a special misison based on this experience. I think it was my mind, filled with images, input and memories carrying me, if you will, into a spiritual experience to teach me something or make me aware of something. I don't conclude there's a devil or a god based on this. It perhaps provided me a lesson or feeling I needed. And that's up to me to decide. But again, its all a matter of interpretation. I don't think it's a good move to take a spiritual experience and conclude God or the religion, that shows all signs of problems when it comes to being true, is true or God-inspired.

Thanks for the comments. I think I can agree with your overall point even if we disagree about something here. I feel like we're talking two different things, even if they relate in some ways. Also, I'm reminded of the need to remain humble in acknowledging there is plenty we don't know. Like, I don't know there's no God at all...even if it seems like all explanations run afowl of what we observe, or contradict sound reasoning, I can say it's still possible.

Shorter...maybe a little sweeter this time.

Can't argue much with that. Yes, I wasn't meaning to "sneak" religion in, I am just noting that spirituality is a religious theme in personal terms.

[dastardly stem]

Thanks for the response, Philo. I felt like there was plenty to agree on and wasn't sure I was making myself clear.

[Reflexzero]

Osiris, Zeus, Amat and the rest of the old gods enjoyed the worship of millions for thousands of years. But the fires of their alters were slowly snuffed out by time and conquest.

Eventually the sun will set on Elohim, Jehovah and Michael as well, the middle children of a fickle humanity.

[mentalgymnast]

What proof means to me, though, is more than that. If I can prove something, then not only should I believe it confidently: you should believe it as well. Even if it's a proof that I can't just show you, because you have to experience it yourself, if there's a reliable procedure by which anyone can have that experience and replicate my proof, then everyone ought to do that. If they don't, then that's not just an unfortunate decision on their part which leads to them missing a good chance, but a failing for which they can be blamed: there was an easy way for them to be sure and they just didn't bother to check it out.

There are undoubtedly strands of that attitude in many religions, but I really don't think it's predominant. At least as prominent are traditions about faith being difficult, even requiring divine help.

Alma 32 seems to parallel your views. Faith is found through the experimental method. And it can’t be passed from one person to another. Often on this board I’ve had folks ask me to prove that one thing or another is true. That’s difficult if not impossible to do. A person has to grow the seed of faith and water it, themselves, or it dies.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Osiris, Zeus, Amat and the rest of the old gods enjoyed the worship of millions for thousands of years. But the fires of their alters were slowly snuffed out by time and conquest.

Eventually the sun will set on Elohim, Jehovah and Michael as well, the middle children of a fickle humanity.

ALLAH IS TRENDING HARD RIGHT NOW. IT JUST SURPASSED $50K.

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

Osiris, Zeus, Amat and the rest of the old gods enjoyed the worship of millions for thousands of years. But the fires of their alters were slowly snuffed out by time and conquest.

Eventually the sun will set on Elohim, Jehovah and Michael as well, the middle children of a fickle humanity.

ALLAH IS TRENDING HARD RIGHT NOW. IT JUST SURPASSED $50K.

- Doc

That's nuthin man. Mormon Elohim is at $120,000,000,000 +!!! Er... well, his corporation is anyway