Is Mormonism so bad?

[dastardly stem]

We are quick to forget that Mormonism was born in a Christian world. The dominate religion influencing Mormonism from its birth was Christianity. Christianity like all religions is a split religion. Its splitness is precisly why Mormonism and other odd forms of Christianity came to be.

If we go back to a period of time after Jesus but near his proposed life we get division among those who taught this odd form of Judaism. Some declared Jesus was not. He was not a living oracle--God coming down to earth assuming human flesh...indeed no one, seemingly, would have put it that way for hundreds of years. Their Christianity was one of allegory. Jesus did not live but the story arose to fulfill what was thought to be heavenly events. One of the erstwhile defenses of Christ historicity is that people near to Jesus' time, but after He died, actually believed Jesus really lived. But the existence of believers who did not accept that proposition demonstrate the opposite. The reason why people are able to use it as a defense is because the winners of that early Christian disagreement told the story of their era, or at least so that seems to be the case.

Now, I do not mean to suggest Jesus never lived. He may or may not have. But history cannot pretend to support the notion that Jesus rose from the dead, despite the protestation of believers who wish to skew history in their favor.

Demonstrations in history that the story of Christianity is much different than what today's Christian world teaches is precisely comparable to the complaint of Mormonism. We forget, it seems, each are examples of religion misleading its adherents. On this Mormonism is no more diabolical than Christianity and, as is assumed, every other religion. Not to get into it but as a matter of acknowledging it, dogma is religion's greatest weakness. It's dearest ally is it's folly.

A huge problem we should be concerned about is victimhood. As former Mormons we want to blame a religion that has done nothing more than all religions before it (and after it, amazingly). Some might chafe at such a notion thinking Mormonism's offenses are worse, with it's lies and misleadings. I don't' think that can be maintained. Others might chafe in that Mormonism is worse because it is more demanding and what we might say more cult-like. I also don't think that can be maintained. The only reason why it's more cultlike than traditional Christian religions is because it's smaller and is a newer attempt at exclusive truth. The demands may seem heavy to the evolved and worn liberal Christian sects but perhaps less heavy to the conservative more fundamental Christian groups.

When a traditional Christian clears the mind and finds the truth of the Jesus myth, including all the lies she's been told through religion, it's no fun. We Mormons assume our hurt is worse because the lies are more easily uncovered. The comparison loses it's impact when one considers Christianity's lies started thousands of years back. And what we fail to realize or accept is Mormonism's lies were but add-ons to the lies of it's parent religion. Christianity was merely doing what it's parent religions were doing before it, adding to the lies already bought and sold.

If we compare this to a parent-child relationship, we end up with a faultless child following the example of it's parent who, when it was a child followed the example of its parent. Its not one religion that's at fault but the whole concept of religion itself. If we go back far enough and imagine the time when simple communities worshipped tiny gods (compared to our big ones), we know their rituals to appease to stop a draught, control a volcano, or a rapidly formed deluge were not met with divine assistance. They were simply a matter of natural processes that were not divinely interfered with. But those believers thought, when the rains came, it was god, or when a volcano did not erupt it was god's doing. They also believed the opposite. When drought killed, it was god, when the volcano ruptured it was god showing disapproval of sacrifice. I'd wonder if we consider religion as a whole on human history, if we ever really could, the best definition of religion might be lies. But I'd wonder if it's ever fair to criticize any religion itself, since doing so we're merely blaming a child for the sins of its parent, all the way back to the beginning. That we throw a God at the start of this mess, seems silly. The history of religion makes sense from a naturalist standpoint. but if there is a God, religion is his greatest hoax, put upon us, it seems, to cause us problem and pain while making us think its supposed to do that opposite.

But we're in a position to end the cycle of this repeated groundhog day. Religion anchored humans for millennia past, but thanks to past sacrifices we live in a world where human reason can triumph. It'd be humanity's greatest disrespect to squander the opportunities our fore-fathers gave us. I don't think we do it by focusing on one religion, or pretend that the child is worse for following the example of its parent. We do not win by cowering to the pain, however real it is, of ignorant offense. Religion does what religion does. Its part of our human world. The question we need to ask ourselves is do we let it persist

[mentalgymnast]

As former Mormons we want to blame a religion that has done nothing more than all religions before it (and after it, amazingly). Some might chafe at such a notion thinking Mormonism's offenses are worse, with it's lies and misleadings. I don't' think that can be maintained. Others might chafe in that Mormonism is worse because it is more demanding and what we might say more cult-like. I also don't think that can be maintained. The only reason why it's more cultlike than traditional Christian religions is because it's smaller and is a newer attempt at exclusive truth. The demands may seem heavy to the evolved and worn liberal Christian sects but perhaps less heavy to the conservative more fundamental Christian groups.

On another thread I pointed out that I believed your whole post was tipping precariously on top of a false premise of defining reality, from your limited perspective, and then building on top of that as though you were then defining or explicating truth. But that was ignored, of course, and folks went on their merry rhetorical way.

I’m concerned you may be doing the same thing here. Maybe not...but you might want to look at it.
(pointed out in blue)

Secondly, and right after this false(?) premise, you then focus on negativity rather than positivity. Positivity is left at the side of the road bereft of any mention. But of course your header/intro sentence gives you license to do that.

As an exmormon I can see why you might, without thinking, project your own ‘reality’ onto your introductory premises, but to some of us it stands out as being unduly judgmental and superficially suspect.

Anyway, carry on, I won’t belabor the point. By doing so I might be accused of a derail. Just suggesting you might want to be careful with your language.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

As former Mormons we want to blame a religion that has done nothing more than all religions before it (and after it, amazingly). Some might chafe at such a notion thinking Mormonism's offenses are worse, with it's lies and misleadings. I don't' think that can be maintained. Others might chafe in that Mormonism is worse because it is more demanding and what we might say more cult-like. I also don't think that can be maintained. The only reason why it's more cultlike than traditional Christian religions is because it's smaller and is a newer attempt at exclusive truth. The demands may seem heavy to the evolved and worn liberal Christian sects but perhaps less heavy to the conservative more fundamental Christian groups.

On another thread I pointed out that I believed your whole post was tipping precariously on top of a false premise of defining reality, from your limited perspective, and then building on top of that as though you were then defining or explicating truth. But that was ignored, of course, and folks went on their merry rhetorical way.

It wasn't ignored. I saw your post this morning, and responded with a definition.

I’m concerned you may be doing the same thing here. Maybe not...but you might want to look at it.
(pointed out in blue)

Are you suggesting in terms of setting up the story of religion, Mormonism didn't do as religions did previously?

Secondly, and right after this false(?) premise, you then focus on negativity rather than positivity. Positivity is left at the side of the road bereft of any mention. But of course your header/intro sentence gives you license to do that.

I'm confused by this as well. Are you suggesting there should be something saying there are positive effects of religion or your religion?

As an exmormon I can see why you might, without thinking, project your own ‘reality’ onto your introductory premises, but to some of us it stands out as being unduly judgmental and superficially suspect.

Anyway, carry on, I won’t belabor the point. By doing so I might be accused of a derail. Just suggesting you might want to be careful with your language.

Regards,
MG

If you have a good critique I'm more than happy to consider it. I'm not sure I understand the critique you offered though. I wouldn't mind seeing what you might have if you care to flesh it out a little more. If you are just playing around and trying to confuse things for confusion's sake as it seems some have accused you of, that's fine too. I'll still consider your ideas.

[mentalgymnast]

Are you suggesting in terms of setting up the story of religion, Mormonism didn't do as religions did previously?

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’.

Are you suggesting there should be something saying there are positive effects of religion or your religion?

Both. But the negative was accentuated while ignoring the positive.

I don’t want to go off on a tangent so as not to derail the direction you would like to go, so I’ll back off for now.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

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’.

I don't see how that's any different from Christianity. In other words that is merely a reflection of it coming out of Christianity which itself encompasses human history, creation of worlds, future existence and progression of sentient beings....Looking at it from the outside of both Mormonism and Christianity they are the same religion with different details.

Are you suggesting there should be something saying there are positive effects of religion or your religion?

Both. But the negative was accentuated while ignoring the positive.

I don’t want to go off on a tangent so as not to derail the direction you would like to go, so I’ll back off for now.

Regards,
MG
[/quote]

Ok noted. I'll try better at that.

[dastardly stem]

I don’t want to go off on a tangent so as not to derail the direction you would like to go, so I’ll back off for now.

Regards,
MG

I thought some more about this wondering where this is coming from and how it fits. I re-read my comments wondering how I would incorporate. But this really has nothing to do with weighing in the balance good effects and bad effects of religion or any religion. It's simply an assessment of whether religion, as stories get built to make it appear verifiably true, can be maintained in its current condition.

So I thought back again to what would be after Jesus' time, when Christianity started it's life. And I recalled some lines I read, from Richard Carrier, which I don't have in front of me and can't find easily online. So I'll summarize. Some of the letters attributed to Paul are clear forgeries, but others, which are largely supported to be written by Paul, are clear candidates of being the earliest Christian documents. But Paul does not mention JEsus' teaching. He does not mention Jesus' life, and when Paul does teach and instruct, he's claiming to do so, based on revelation and not supporting teachings which Jesus apparently gave. How odd it is Paul would claim Christ and his teachings be completely ignored. Of course, when the gospels are written, decades later, Paul is perhaps no longer around. The anonymous authors seem intent on adding to the story of Jesus interesting teaching, because it just seemed sensible and necessary if he really did live and die and rose the third day that he must have taught something really interesting and good. That's perhaps why when you think about it, Jesus' teachings aren't really very interesting or good, on the whole. In some ways he seems to actually hate certain people. In others he seems happiest to leave his parables as esoteric nonsense only really useful to a select few. Anyway, it made me wonder, why must we worry about the good effects of religion if we are discussing whether the religion has a reasonable basis for it's claims?

[huckelberry]

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.

[Physics Guy]

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.

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.

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.

[Moksha]

Some might chafe at such a notion thinking Mormonism's offenses are worse, with its lies and misleading.

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

[IHAQ]

"Mormonism" is a multiplicity of good and bad.

Leaders exerting control rather than facilitating faith is bad.
Coercing through guilt is bad.
Preaching to poor Africans that the way out of poverty is to give 10% of your income to an already eye-wateringly wealthy American church, is bad.
Not telling the members the truth about church history is bad, and then doubling down on the people who are telling the truth is despicable.
Building ornate edifices costing tens of millions of dollars so people can pretend they are doing good things for dead people, is bad (when you spend more looking after the dead than you do on helping the living, you're a bad entity).
Etc.

The problem is the institutionalising of faith. Once you build in hierarchy and rules and rituals and money and conditions and segmentation based on arbitrary things, you introduce the abuse of power by the people involved. All institutionalised religions are inherently bad for these types of reasons.