- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just read that John D. is doing mormon podcast on two former LDS friends who are now “secular humanist.” No question that many of the folks on this site would fit into that definition, certainly I would. It’s one of the many religions I have listed on my face book page over the last two years. 
Question — is there any honest and reasonable argument that a true secular humanist, like myself, could fit in amongst members and truly be a part of the LDS church. I am failing to do so as of now. Are there others who are making it work? And if so, just how “Mormon” can you be and still be true to your values and beliefs (secular humanist values and beliefs). Perhaps a separate question but related. Do secular humanist do more harm than good to other LDS members and family? When does one cross the line from, “Help others as much as you can. And if you can’t help them, at least do them no harm.”?
FYI
Here is a brief overview from wiki
Quote:Secular Humanism is a secular philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and the search for human fulfillment, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making. Secular Humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives.
Secular Humanism is distinguished from various other forms of humanism. Though Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion, or God, that is not to say it assumes humans to be inherently or innately good. Nor does it present humans as “above nature” or superior to it; by contrast, the humanist life stance emphasises the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions.
Fundamental to the concept of Secular Humanism is the strongly held belief that ideology—be it religious or political—must be examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith.[2] Along with this belief, an essential part of Secular Humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
Secular Humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[3]
* Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.
* Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
looking forward to hear the podcasts.
I think as a secular humanist you could fit in very well, depending on how you choose to express yourself. I see a lot of common ground, and with a healthy respect for and appreciation of tradition, symbolism and ritual I think the conflicts could be kept to a minimum. cwald wrote:…No question that many of the folks on this site would fit into that definition, certainly I would.
…Question — is there any honest and reasonable argument that a true secular humanist, like myself, could fit in amongst members and truly be a part of the LDS church…just how “Mormon” can you be and still be true to your values and beliefs (secular humanist values and beliefs). Perhaps a separate question but related. Do secular humanist do more harm than good to other LDS members and family?
Personally I wouldn’t want to openly admit to embracing Secular Humanism mostly because of the atheist connotations. Secular Humanism looks like it’s not very compatible with traditional Mormonism and many other organized religions that are almost the exact opposite as far as expecting people to have enough faith to sacrifice some comfort and convenience in this life mostly for the sake of some supposed reward in the next life.
In my opinion, it would be better to incorporate a more balanced or watered-down version of these secular humanist ideas without going to extremes and trying to make categorical claims. For example, rather than disparaging faith and tradition as if they are completely worthless in every case I would rather just say that I personally don’t have that much confidence in the Bible or prophets as any kind of absolute authority but if others want to believe in them that way then I can respect their right to have their own opinions.
I think Secular Humanism could be compatible with the processof Mormonism — the seeking of truth, seeking a good life, and testing truths on an individual basis (to name a few ties). I think it would not be as compatible with the faith content of Mormonism. My first thought is that it would depend on your level of tolerance for other people around you depending on the supernatural and on religious dogma. That generally seems to be the same problem for anyone who breaks their connection with orthodoxy.
I really don’t think most members would “get it.” So I don’t think you would get much, if any, open validation for your path if you espoused it publicly in your community. Again, a pretty similar situation as anyone who wanders outside the box.
I think there are two things that have to be considered in this discussion. The first is whether or not our reliance on reason is truely objective and being willing to account for all the other variables such as emotion, culture, etc. that might influence our decisions. The second is if we’re willing to accept the consequences of a reliance on reason or if when faced with loss or home or associations we’ll decide that compromise is what we want rather than what’s true. That’s a good point Brian, about not receiving validation for your personal path. I guess I’ve jumped off that train, I don’t expect any personal validation from church, and apparently the topic fails to show on my radar at times. There is however, some comfort in finding common ground. The times when principles and stories are shared the sense of community is comforting.
GBSmith wrote:The first is whether or not our reliance on reason is truely objective and being willing to account for all the other variables such as emotion, culture, etc. that might influence our decisions.
This touches on a BIG issue and potential problem when people decide to go down the path a material science world view, and “pure” objective reason and logic (whatever that really is, that’s another debate).
1. This is a very left-brained approach. But that misses the other entire half of our intellectual capacity — intuitive intelligence and subjective experience associated with our “right brain.”
2. Only a small portion of our mind operates on a conscious, direct level that reasons through chains of evidence in a focused way. The VAST majority of our mind is subconscious, containing a lot of programming that runs on autopilot, and makes rapid conclusions based on complex relationships, often from large amounts of data that isn’t in our conscious awareness. Our mind is constantly making amazing decisions, fine tuning our biology in response to our environment. It is also constantly churning through programming and data that we are not consciously aware of.
So … to say we will
onlyuse “objective” reasons and logic to create meaning in our life, that leaves out a HUGE chunk of what it means to have a human experience. Some “truths” can only be experienced through ritualized practices and subjective experience IMO. Religion, in the very broad sense, is the toolbox to access that control panel. I do think there’s some contingency of LDS people who think “secular humanism” is a major threat, but IMO they greatly misunderstand it. I agree with Brian that it’s not incompatible with the LDS approach to spirituality, even if many LDS people would find it threatening because of the atheist/agnostic implication. hawkgrrrl wrote:I do think there’s some contingency of LDS people who think “secular humanism” is a major threat, but IMO they greatly misunderstand it. I agree with Brian that it’s not incompatible with the LDS approach to spirituality, even if many LDS people would find it threatening because of the atheist/agnostic implication.
To me, Secular Humanism looks almost like a reaction of defiance in response to some of the most common excesses of religion. That’s why I think it really is a major threat, especially to some of the most dogmatic religious sects, because it exposes where exactly they have gone wrong in many cases such as perverting faith to the point of expecting followers to ignore or deny legitimate scientific or historical evidence in order to perpetuate myths and leveraging the threat of eternal punishment to manipulate people into making unnecessary and unreasonable sacrifices just because some religious leaders said so. Even though I think they go too far with some of their assumptions, I think secular humanists are mostly good for at least trying to keep religious sects somewhat honest rather than just letting them get away with some of the stunts they will repeatedly try to pull.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:To me, Secular Humanism looks almost like a reaction of defiance in response to some of the most common excesses of religion….
I agree, and I would say this is EXACTLY why I have gone this general direction. My experience with the LDS church has pushed me this way – it’s a cause/affect of a culture that has placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on obedience to authority, and symbolism, tradition and ritual, at the expense of personal revelation and individual relationships with deity. I know this is not what Mormonism IS – but it is certainly what the religion has evolved into in essence with a large portion of the membership – most likely as a consequence of the church growing to fast.
I haven’t heard the podcast, but I’m going to guess this is what they will say as well.
Quote:most likely as a consequence of the church growing too fast
and the natural result of trying to keep it from splintering – again. It’s easy to forget that “the good old days” weren’t so good when it comes to security and solidarity.
Anyway, I agree that “full” Secular Humanism really isn’t compatible with religion – but the central concepts are perfectly compatible with one of the major strains of Mormon thought and theology. After all, this is the religion that includes the scriptural statements that “the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth” and “seek ye learning out of the best books . . .”
There has to be good reason that these guys have gone from LDS to secular humanists. I mean, unlike the cultural belief, many if not most of the folks who bail on the church, are not doing so because they have lost faith in god and the concepts of “pure mormonism.” I think most people leave because they have lost faith in the “church.” It’s a huge difference. My pure mormonism teachings and “brainwashing” are the exact reasons that I have angst towards the church. I’m using their own teachings and philosophy against them so to speak. 😈 I read the wiki explanation that I posted with the OP, and I see a ton argument that JS himself leaned that way. Sure, he was certainly a religious humanists, and became more and more so as he progressed over his life. But did he not really start the whole church using secular humanist views? — I mean, his whole platform for starting the church was in rebellion against organized religion, against the, in the words of the DA, “the excesses of organized religion and authority.”
Perhaps this is why these guys, and other LDS members become disenfranchised with the church today. It does not really resemble the the church that JS envisioned. In actuality, it resembles what he was fighting against. No?
I’m just saying that secular humanist views and ideals that JS had, explains a ton of why some folks today have issues with the church????? I think these podcast will bear that out, and put a lot of what I, and I’m sure many others, feel and believe, into logical and rational terms, language and explanations —- things that I have failed to do so here on this thread.
For me the ideal is what episcopalians use as criteria for determining what is true in theology, i.e. scripture, tradition and reason. This seems to encompass the best of all resources to bring to bear. I know other’s might say to include the spirit or revelation but that is so subjective and can be so manipulated I’ve given up trusting that anymore. Yeah, cwald – I get that and agree that Joseph wouldn’t be comfortable in the Church now. I just believe that the vast majority of members now wouldn’t feel comfortable in Joseph’s church – and, objectively, I would say a really large number of the members then didn’t either. Stability only came through isolation, entrenchment and consolidation (all aspects of “correlation”). As I’ve said elsewhere, the kind of free-wheeling, rebellion-driven creativity of Joseph’s time can’t last long-term on a broad, organizational level. It simply has to find a rock upon which to build eventually – or it will disappear. The key is finding a balance between the good fruit and the bitter fruit, so to speak – understanding the bitter inevitably will appear (and take some time to be seen clearly for what it is) and realizing growth is a continual pruning process. It also might include the recognition that pruners are critical to this process – that those who naturally would recognize, point out and prune the bitter fruit can’t leave and hope that others will fill that role.
Sincere question:
How many here believe that the recent training on the new CHI – including the reorganizational aspects and the stress put on the individuals and personal revelation – occurred in a vacuum? I believe that much of it occurred because the leadership really is responding to concerns at the ground level.
cwald wrote:There has to be good reason that these guys have gone from LDS to secular humanists…I think most people leave because they have lost faith in the “church.”…I’m using their own teachings and philosophy against them so to speak.
…I see a ton argument that JS himself leaned that way. Sure, he was certainly a religious humanists, and became more and more so as he progressed over his life. But did he not really start the whole church using secular humanist views? — I mean, his whole platform for starting the church was in rebellion against organized religion, against the, in the words of the DA, “the excesses of organized religion and authority.”
Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, cwald – I get that and agree that Joseph wouldn’t be comfortable in the Church now. I just believe that the vast majority of members now wouldn’t feel comfortable in Joseph’s church…Stability only came through isolation, entrenchment and consolidation (all aspects of “correlation”).
As I’ve said elsewhere, the kind of free-wheeling, rebellion-driven creativity of Joseph’s time can’t last long-term on a broad, organizational level. It simply has to find a rock upon which to bild eventually – or it will disappear. The key is finding a balance between the good fruit and the bitter fruit…
I agree that the Church has become almost exactly the same kind of thing Joseph Smith was rebelling against to begin with (for good reason) such as creeds, tradition for its own sake, strict ascetic rules masquerading as universal moral laws, a closed canon of scriptures that are often misunderstood and interpreted differently by different church leaders, etc. The LDS Church makes atheism look fairly attractive to many people by comparison in large part because it has ratcheted up the total cost of membership so much in terms of time, money, and strict rules that they expect out of people and because of the intolerant all-or-nothing attitudes about so many different doctrines.
In many cases, Secular Humanism represents the polar opposite of many of the ideas we hear repeatedly in church and presents them in a relatively positive and reasonable way. For example, the Church claims that feelings (spiritual testimony) and the revealed “word of God” should trump any other sources of “knowledge” whereas Secular Humanism relies primarily on evidence and logic that are harder to deny. The Church says we should pay our tithing before paying our bills whereas Secular Humanism emphasizes happiness and fulfilment in this life with no regard for any afterlife. If I had to choose between the two I would choose Secular Humanism but I think there are other options available that combine the best of both approaches. I think the first step is simply recognizing that Church leaders are only human and make mistakes so there’s really no need to agree with everything they say.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.