Is Mormonism so bad?

[dastardly stem]

dastardly stem,

So improved historical understanding is that some guy named Jesus, well there were lots of guys named Jesus, got killed by Romans, well lots of Jews got killed by the Romans, created a bunch of committed followers because he only had a few tiresome things to say, mostly made up by people thirty years after his death.

Well, Richard Carrier actually argues Jesus never really lived. That like many other resurrection and/or savior deities before him he was created. His books argue this and I think are rather convincing. But I'm also quite sympathetic, personally, to the notion that Jesus likely lived, even if the stories about him were exaggerated.

[dastardly stem]

I dunno, stem, but after what, a few decades in Mormonism, it seems as though you've become an expert in all other religions awfully fast. Maybe you're right and every form of religion in which humans have ever invested has been nothing but a fundamental mistake, but if you're entertaining radical hypotheses then perhaps you should also consider the possibility that right now you're kind of seeing everything through a bitter lens.

Certainly no expert here. In this case, I've read some experts and have mentioned Richard Carrier specifically in this thread. I think he largely resides on the fringe, but he'd maintain, as I seem to recall being the case, he's on the fringe because his field and area of expertise has various types of Christian believers who feel compelled to disagree or dismiss his main arguments for political reasons. I do believe secretly, he's maintained, many accept at least many of his arguments but simply can't go public with it.

I don't have any particular spiritual insight into anyone else's thinking, but it seems to me as though there's a real general issue that anyone dealing with religious disillusionment ought to consider at some point: the general temptation to try to come out of a painful episode with at least a good story.

I mean, if I have a bad experience at work I don't want it to be because my manager Josh is a jerk. Who else even knows Josh? I want it to be because capitalism is inherently evil. And I wouldn't want to have been taken in by a hokey little religious con, either. I'd much rather have been caught up in Religion, have gotten seduced by the one great Whore of Babylon herself. It's a better story.

Fair point. I can't do much other than feed myself with that which seems most plausible and interesting though. If my motivation is nothing more than tearing the house down to satisfy my hurt for all the disillusionment, then I suppose my views could be clouded. I don't know why, but it doesn't feel like that's the case for me. And again, all I can really do is find myself moved by the arguments I consider and offer question and thought as they come. If my motivation is bad, I suppose the question and thought can be addressed anyway. I don't see the harm in it.

Religion with a capital R as this basic human error is a myth. It's a myth whether or not there is any truth to it: it works as a myth. It turns complex things into a simple story that people want to believe because it soothes our vanity when it has been kicked by the uncaring world.

I don't mean to say that there are no big truths. I think there are, and so it could be that the folly of Religion is one of them. But a big part of whatever folly there is in religion is that humans seem to be overly quick to see Big Truths in the details of our own experiences. That's a factor that has to be taken into account, it seems to me, if one is trying to shake off mythical thinking.

I certainly appreciate the caution. I've been one to proceed with caution my whole life. I guess it's gotten me this far, so that probably won't change. I don't know that means the very interesting material and scholarship out there, some of which I've gobbled up, is nonsense nor useless. I think there's plenty of value to talk about these things, and wonder...what if we saw it this way instead?

[dastardly stem]

Stem, what was up with that Francis of Assisi guy? What was his angle?

I read Celestial Kingdom Chesterson's book on him and I believe it's still sitting on my shelf. Your mention makes me want to go pick it up and pick through it. I really liked him.

[dastardly stem]

Last night I tried to dig up the book or two by Carrier I once had, but can't seem to find them. I realized yesterday as I started typing things out I'm feeling pretty rusty on his position. So since I couldn't find what I was looking for, I decided to poke around this morning to help explain the position that I started on.

Here's a youtube video where he rather informally explains some of what I was going for:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUOyWezC7I&t=2843s

I skimmed some this morning and plan to give it a good listen throughout today. If you're interested and have an hour or so, give it a listen.

[huckelberry]

Certainly no expert here. In this case, I've read some experts and have mentioned Richard Carrier specifically in this thread. I think he largely resides on the fringe, but he'd maintain, as I seem to recall being the case, he's on the fringe because his field and area of expertise has various types of Christian believers who feel compelled to disagree or dismiss his main arguments for political reasons. I do believe secretly, he's maintained, many accept at least many of his arguments but simply can't go public with it.

dastardly stem, I can see how Carrier can be interesting. He presents a different point of view which can engage people in thinking about what could have happened in the formation of Christianity. A while back there was an extended discussion here about his views. Philo was presenting and supporting. I am unsure if he was or is deeply convinced of Carriers views but he understandably found them interesting.

In the studies of the Bible, early Christian history, and the historical Jesus there are many people with differing views. It is true for some they are committed to a traditional view both due to there own faith and perhaps by requirements of the religious institutions the belong to. Most academic institutions are not religious based and present scholars with no belief requirements. There are people who are not believers. There are people who are believers but who think their beliefs should adjust to historical evidence. The results of these studies show different views than may be held by fundamentalist demanding inerrant scripture or a majority of people sitting in pews. However these historical views have not been hidden. There have been books a plenty published and classes taught reviewing this. Even the Bible I read has discussion of authorship of letters traditionally called Paul's.I think Carriers claim that people do not agree with him because of religious beliefs is quite weak.

It is more interesting and helpful I think to consider the story Carrier creates by asking how well it fits evidence fits the context and how well it explains what happened.

[dastardly stem]

Certainly no expert here. In this case, I've read some experts and have mentioned Richard Carrier specifically in this thread. I think he largely resides on the fringe, but he'd maintain, as I seem to recall being the case, he's on the fringe because his field and area of expertise has various types of Christian believers who feel compelled to disagree or dismiss his main arguments for political reasons. I do believe secretly, he's maintained, many accept at least many of his arguments but simply can't go public with it.

dastardly stem, I can see how Carrier can be interesting. He presents a different point of view which can engage people in thinking about what could have happened in the formation of Christianity. A while back there was an extended discussion here about his views. Philo was presenting and supporting. I am unsure if he was or is deeply convinced of Carriers views but he understandably found them interesting.

In the studies of the Bible, early Christian history, and the historical Jesus there are many people with differing views. It is true for some they are committed to a traditional view both due to there own faith and perhaps by requirements of the religious institutions the belong to. Most academic institutions are not religious based and present scholars with no belief requirements. There are people who are not believers. There are people who are believers but who think their beliefs should adjust to historical evidence. The results of these studies show different views than may be held by fundamentalist demanding inerrant scripture or a majority of people sitting in pews. However these historical views have not been hidden. There have been books a plenty published and classes taught reviewing this. Even the Bible I read has discussion of authorship of letters traditionally called Paul's.I think Carriers claim that people do not agree with him because of religious beliefs is quite weak.

It is more interesting and helpful I think to consider the story Carrier creates by asking how well it fits evidence fits the context and how well it explains what happened.

Thanks for the comments, huckleberry. Not sure what message you are wishing to convey. I'd suggest Carrier's views are interesting not in that they are different so much as they are well attested to. Of course he's not alone in many of his views...many other scholars agree with him on many points he's raised or that have been raised. And of course there is disagreement on the beginning of Christianity. It's an era rife with variation and loss of data from which we can ascertain. Scholars are wise to stop short of conclusions made hastily. Carrier is good at that.

[honorentheos]

This argument is a reminder of how much was lost with the old board. There were a number of good discussions on Carrier.

I thought it worth the effort to track at least one down.

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48033

It seemed like we had a discussion on the topic regularly over there so I'm sure there are a half-dozen threads minimum.

[Philo Sofee]

MentalGymnast
Mormonism is unique in that it claims to be a story which encompasses all of human history, the creation of the worlds, and the future existence and progression of sentient beings. It’s LARGE. Yes, all religions have a story and these stories have commonalities...but Mormonism sets itself up with God being at the center directing the affairs of men from the very dawn of history. Well, at least from the time of ‘Adam’.

This is not at all unique. Judaism's esoteric materials going way back into hoary antiquity at least to the beginning of the actual text of Genesis sometime around 500 B.C. teach the exact same thing, and continue to teach these ideas. They have taught this through the millenia and while sometimes their more spiritual teachings have gone underground away from the public (which Mormons would interpret as possible apostasy, but I no longer see it that way), it has always re-surfaced. There is nothing you have said that is not also found in Judaism, and most especially in the Kabbalah and it's various and sundry texts dating from at least 300 B.C. And these texts and their ideas certainly use and accept the materials from the books of Enoch, Daniel, and Ezekiel, further demonstrating the ideas were far earlier than their actual publishing time getting those ideas out.

[honorentheos]

MentalGymnast
Mormonism is unique in that it claims to be a story which encompasses all of human history, the creation of the worlds, and the future existence and progression of sentient beings. It’s LARGE. Yes, all religions have a story and these stories have commonalities...but Mormonism sets itself up with God being at the center directing the affairs of men from the very dawn of history. Well, at least from the time of ‘Adam’.

This is not at all unique. Judaism's esoteric materials going way back into hoary antiquity at least to the beginning of the actual text of Genesis sometime around 500 B.C. teach the exact same thing, and continue to teach these ideas. They have taught this through the millenia and while sometimes their more spiritual teachings have gone underground away from the public (which Mormons would interpret as possible apostasy, but I no longer see it that way), it has always re-surfaced. There is nothing you have said that is not also found in Judaism, and most especially in the Kabbalah and it's various and sundry texts dating from at least 300 B.C. And these texts and their ideas certainly use and accept the materials from the books of Enoch, Daniel, and Ezekiel, further demonstrating the ideas were far earlier than their actual publishing time getting those ideas out.

Or zoroastrianism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or...

That is one of the most myopic comments I've seen in a long while. MG prefers a Western American/human centric religion constrained by 19th century thought lacking any sort of viable, recognized spiritual philosophical or esoteric tradition whose defining characteristic is orthopraxy, and claims it's the most expansive belief system available.

Wow.

[Moksha]

Stem, what was up with that Francis of Assisi guy? What was his angle?

I read Celestial Kingdom Chesterson's book on him and I believe it's still sitting on my shelf. Your mention makes me want to go pick it up and pick through it. I really liked him.

I'm thinking that if good examples of religious practice exist, then the LDS Church might have something to strive for. I know Francis of Assisi was not into wealth accumulation, so that would put him at odds with the current leadership of the Church. Recently the LDS Church tried to tie a Temple in Tooele to a lucrative real estate development. Francis was much too pastoral to tear up any pastures for a grand cathedral. He would look to the flock rather than to Mammon.