- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I stumbled upon this and found it fascinating in the StayLDS context. From “Explaining Reform Judaism”, by Eugene B. Borowitz, Naomi Patz
Quote:“The Reformers were sure that the messages of the prophets was much more important than the restrictions that separated Jews from the general society. Translated into specific terms this meant that keeping kosher, not riding on Shabbat, and other such laws mattered less to God than justice and righteous behavior. People could best be good Jews by being ethical human beings. If emancipated Jews were not bound by ritual restrictions, they could remain good Jews and at the same time participate fully in the civilization around them.
This new connection of Judaism with universal ethics led to one problem. If Judaism is mainly ethics, why not give Judaism up altogether? Why not become decent Christians or a-religious citizens? Why bother with Judaism at all?
One part of the answer has to do with an important difference between Judaism and Christianity. Traditional Christians place more emphasis on “faith” than on “works.” In other words, having the right belief — in Jesus — is the most important part of their religion. They believe that if you have the right faith you will then live decently. That is very different from the Jewish stress on doing the right thing. Judaism has always given detailed guidance as to what Jews should do. The Bible and the Talmud are full of commandments and religious statements about the right way to act. Jewish parents have been very concerned with what their children do, and the Jewish community celebrates Jewish virtues and criticizes Jewish wrongdoing. To give up Judaism for a faith without such strong ethical passion would be a great loss.
We also need Judaism because of democracy itself does not create ethical behavior, nor does education alone make people moral. As recent American history has shown, being smart doesn’t make a person good and being free doesn’t make a person responsible. Conscience doesn’t function automatically. It has to be properly developed through education and practice, and it has to be strengthened all the time. People do not behave decently unless they believe that justice and mercy are the most important values in life — regardless of what the majority thinks or does. Many people in society today act as if they do not care about ethical behavior. But it will always be the essence of Reform Judaism.”
I’m not arguing for the logic here. I’m more intrigued by the fact that these questions we’re asking are in no way unique to the Mormon experience. In reality, they are part of the human religious experience.I see your parallel. Why stay Mormon, if it is just a good belief structure, rather than the “one true church”? I’m not sure I have a good answer, but the support structure is nice…. 
johndehlin wrote:We also need Judaism because of democracy itself does not create ethical behavior, nor does education alone make people moral. As recent American history has shown, being smart doesn’t make a person good and being free doesn’t make a person responsible. Conscience doesn’t function automatically.
I wonder if this is not an argument for tradition. Just because democracy and education aren’t enough to “make people moral” does that really mean religion is the only way? I’m sure this is only a part of the argument, but I feel like in some ways it’s a solution trying to find a problem. Like “Look, we have this whole religion with 3000 years of tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax and it’s chock full of all these great ideas to get people to act ethically and morally, let’s just go with this so we don’t have to try to get people to move with something new”.
Just my thoughts, with a little “Big Lebowski” thrown in for good measure.
😆 swimordie wrote:Like “Look, we have this whole religion with 3000 years of tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax and it’s chock full of all these great ideas to get people to act ethically and morally, let’s just go with this so we don’t have to try to get people to move with something new”.
I actually see a lot of wisdom in that statement. Thanks, swimordie!
There is a problem of only looking at ouruse of religion, from the perspective of people that end up on a discussion forum like this. Broad generalizations about people in our StayLDS community:
1. Mature adults, not young children or adolescents.
2. Fowler Stage 4 & 5 most of the time, not Stage 3 types so much (also might not be as literal of believers)
3. We are often the type of person who is compelled by their nature to question and dissect our own beliefs. We have to ask “why,” and were not satisfied by the answers of our community. Going along with the crowd is not our norm.
4. We are often open to seeing the meanings that are past the teachings. We see connections and similarities between our faith and many others over the course of history. We learn about these things, so we are aware of them.
For us? Maybe many religions or denominations would work. I don’t think all religions do the same thing, not exactly. Every one has different focus and highlights. They are different paths. I am not sure they even all go to the same place in the end. I think all are good though.
The problem is that we are a minority among humans. We are probably less than 20% of the population (just guessing). I think the majority of our brothers and sisters function better in an organized religion. They need/want to be in their “one true Church” even if their religion doesn’t say it exactly like that. Religions exist they way they are because they serve a purpose. They exist because people want them to be that way. They don’t have to be. I don’t think religions cause people to be in them. I think people sustain and cause religions to exist.
That presents some interesting discuson material. First, how religion and it’s practices create a sense of group and the importance of that. However, I think I will start another thread with that subject so as not to risk thread jacking this one. From the perspective of what was written, I think that religious practice is very much symbolic. Even in the church we teach that the Law of Moses was preparatory and the practices and way of life were meant to bring people to the Savior. When Christ taught the “higher law” in the new testament, he said it was a fulfillment or continuation of the Law of Moses. In one sense the old law was replaced, but in another it evolved into something higher depending on your perspective. I think that in the church, we often focus on specific practices, but we should always remember the purpose of those practices. The open direction of the higher law, where choices are not always black and white, where we must make hard decisions and walk in the grey area, often makes us want to be told what is right and wrong. In the Law of Moses, as long as they followed the law, they were good, but the higher law causes us to think about our actions and have purpose in them. In one sense an action can be both good or bad depending on the situation.
Take for example my DW on Sunday. We were late to church. She has always felt it disrespectful to walk into a meeting late and would rather listen from the hall so she is not a distraction. While others like to join the meeting at an appropriate point so they can be involved. Both are view points have merit. Do you stay in the hall or do you go in? My wife was acting in a manner that she felt was respectful to God. Our home teacher, that walked by, had the opposite viewpoint and though that she should join the meeting because that is what he felt was the right thing to do. He decided to tell her that and acted like she had committed a heinous sin when she politely refused. Who was wrong?
That is the point, we have practices that we are asked to follow, but they should serve as a reminder of why we practice religion. They should also be a jumping off point for examining all of our actions and helping us become more ethical and moral people.
Valoel wrote:Religions exist they way they are because they serve a purpose. They exist because people want them to be that way. They don’t have to be. I don’t think religions cause people to be in them. I think people sustain and cause religions to exist.
I think this is an excellent argument, at least from my perspective, because I see alot of people “thrive” in the TBM model or other orthodox model. It’s more about benchmark achievement than it is about spirituality though and the black and white view is reinforced by the religious system, “chosen people”.
This is still an outcome of tradition imo, when you have polls that say something like 60-80% of Americans still self-relate to the denomination of their parents and that most of the world is divided up into no more that five “religions” (with lots of variations in that): muslim, hindu, catholic, buddhist, non-catholic christian. Non-catholic christians are the only relatively “new” religion, with less than 1000 years of tradition. These five groups collectively make up well over 80% of the world’s population. (Might be closer to 90%)
I think that some of the founders of the U.S. saw the great experiment in government and self-rule that they were creating as a way to transcend this “tradition”. As children of the enlightenment, they sensed a potential for humans to get “past” religion as the exclusive purveyor of morality and, even, spirituality.
Perhaps some of us here at staylds.com are just as naive about these prospects as Jefferson, Paine, Franklin were. Not bad company though.
I completely agree that our experience is not a uniquely mormon experience. Sometimes we like to think so, but it isn’t. Lots of people have lived and struggled with questions in life way before mormonism came about, so I doubt there are very many experiences we go through in life that are unique. I think human nature leads us to believe our situation is like no other, maybe out of self-defense – but really, it isn’t. I even think the changes that other religions have gone through to adapt to changing times for the benefit of the people are what the LDS faith is facing now (see the thread about “Out of Obscurity and into what??”).
For me, the importance of being in the StayLDS community is to explore things openly, things that I didn’t care to think about when I was in Stage 3.
The importance of “Why Stay LDS” or jewish or catholic for that matter, is it should move us to action. It impacts us in a way it shapes our thoughts, and then we act accordingly in a more “enlightened” way. That is the value of the LDS church for me and why, even when I had the opportunity to abondon it all, I chose to stay and benefit from the values it gives me that direct my live. In that same light, I respect my catholic friends who use their “enlightenment” to act out in a moral and happy way… and so I don’t expect everyone has to think like me to be right. Many paths can lead to the same destination.
As Elder Oaks put it:
Quote:The Apostle Paul taught that the Lord’s teachings and teachers were given that we may all attain “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). This process requires far more than acquiring knowledge. It is not even enough for us to be convinced of the gospel; we must act and think so that we are
convertedby it. In contrast to the institutions of the world, which teach us to know something, the gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to becomesomething. Dallin H. Oaks, “The Challenge to Become,” Liahona, Jan 2001, 40–43swimordie wrote:I think that some of the founders of the U.S. saw the great experiment in government and self-rule that they were creating as a way to transcend this “tradition”. As children of the enlightenment, they sensed a potential for humans to get “past” religion as the exclusive purveyor of morality and, even, spirituality.
Even within the founding fathers, they did not all agree on the approach. Some wanted self-rule of the masses, some believed the masses were too dumb to rule themselves. The great victory, IMO, was not that they “figured out” which formula was right for all, but that they allowed a system to let ALL theories co-exist, and protect each so the successful ones would thrive by its own merit, not by forcing it on the masses.
Similarly with religions, not ALL people will benefit from one TBM mentality, since some people need something more to stimulate their growth. Therefore, we should allow everyone to seek peace in life through whatever means, and just let it all balance out. It was interesting to read that Jewish quote because that same need for divergant paths is needed in Judiasm, and throwing the whole religion out would be a waste of great truths and traditions found in that faith.
That is a good comparison, swimordie, and I appreciated you bringing that up.
My first post: I’m here because of a YouTube presentation by a John Dehlin, which lead me to StayLDS. Forgive me, but I wanted to tell John that I was very impressed with his understanding “inactivity” and the inactive person; Very impressed. I often compare Jewishness with Mormonism, especially with a couple of Jewish friends, and sometimes express my jealousy toward them. They have thousands of years wherein Jews went over literal documents, arguing the facts/ I on the other hand have a religion with a 180 year history and our most important document was taken back by an angel, and then I’m stuck arguing “faith.” A Moses did exist, a David did exist, Abraham… Then I have to “pray about my book, and then Lehi, Nephi and Moroni will exist in my heart. But did they really exist?
The Jews are a tough act to follow. Yet the wellspring of conversations that they have, compared to the narrow scope of what we can talk about at Church, is enviable. They get to talk about concrete history, we have to believe in our history- and therefore are threatened if we question it. Jews are encouraged to question.
Instead of saying “why stay Jewish,” I sometimes wonder, “why not become Jewish.” It would seem to be the only politically correct change of religion a Mormon could make: can’t become Catholic or Protestant, etc., wouldn’t make sense.
Primarycolor, Interesting comments. Welcome to StayLDS.com! Thanks so much for stopping by.
It’s a real coincidence that you write the following: “A Moses did exist, a David did exist, Abraham…”
I have a really thoughtful (and faithful) friend who just wrote the following text on another board:
“In the Old Testament, it now appears, from exhaustive archaeological and textual analysis, that basically anything before roughly the reign of David in 1000 BCE is unhistorical. The creation story is taken from some much older Mesopotamian myths, as is the story of the flood. The story about Joseph, Moses and the Exodus cannot be taken seriously. There are numerous contradictions even within the story — for instance, we read in one place that two midwives sufficed for the children of Israel (indicating a population of no more than 5000 or so), whereas in other places we are told that they numbered over 600,000 men, plus women and children (ie total = 2 or 3 million). In the NT, a significant portion of the gospels, for instance, appears to be embellishment on a few earlier accounts. All of this has been documented in readily available books, such as Friedman’s book on the Old Testament, and Bart Ehrman’s several books on the New Testament.”
Now I haven’t read any of the research that backs up this man’s argument, so please know that I’m not in any way trying to cast doubt. But I did want to note that from what I’ve read about Jews and Judaism — this is how most modern Jews actually view their own scripture……that most of it is allegory and not history. This is why “Reform Judaism” is the largest branch of Judaism in the US (and Reform Judaism, as you might know, does not hold the Jewish “Torah” to be historical or literal.
This is not necessarily where my head/heart is with the Old Testament….but I did want to note the irony. I don’t think that the LDS are in much tougher shape than pretty much anyone else (religion-wise). I think all of “us religious” are in basically the same “faith boat” — fwiw. The question is — can we find a way to enjoy the ride.
But it totally works for me for some reason….doubts and all. I love the ride.
johndehlin, I just recently read “Anti-Semite and Jew,” by Jean-Paul Sarte written in 1946. Couldn’t put it down.
You may be right, the historicity of Moses, Abraham and David could be questionable (David being the most authentic, but perhaps not as grand a King). It is still the most impressive 22 century history, mixed with continual laws and demands on a people.
I found some gems in the book I just read, and I’m re-reading it. It was loaned by a Jewish friend who has known for years that I am drawn to a dichotomy that is apparent to me, between how Jews “think” and how Mormons “feel.” The rational splitting of hairs in Jewish tradition, mentally going over their laws and teachings with reasoning, reasoning, reasoning; I, on the other hand was raised to mentally get information, but faith really, was first and foremost: critical thinking- not that encouraged.
Sartre said, “We should say (that the Jew) has a taste for pure intelligence, that he loves to exercise it with reference to anything and everything, that the use he makes of it is not thwarted by innumerable taboos which still affect the Christian, or by a certain type of particularist sensibility which the non-Jew cultivates willingly. And we should add that there is in the Jew a sort of impassioned imperialism of reason.”
Get this. Sartre goes on to say that for centuries (particularly in France), the Jew finds safety in universal truths, because it will hopefully protect him from the passions of the “faith based” majorities in which they have difficulty assimilating.
I don’t know if this is making sense, but as I appreciate the Jewish situation, they want to reason and be accurate, hoping that others (Christians, Muslims, or any impassioned people who might come for them, etc.) will adhere to concrete truths, not faiths that can be inflamed.
Thanks for your work regarding inactives. I’ve been in this boat for awhile, and appreciate your reaching out.
That is interesting to see the comparisons between Mormons and Jews in a more real and direct way than just looking at the claims of being the true remnants of the House of Israel. Is there enough comparison that the pitfalls of Jewish history can be a warning for Mormons, as stated in the Book of Mormon:
Quote:“But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble” (Jacob 4:14)
I’ll admit, in the back of my mind I have a little concern that if I get into too much studying of history or minutia, I may fall into the “looking beyond the mark” trap…which is why I try to keep myself continually reminded of Christ’s teachings and the evidence from nature of God’s existence. But still…should we be concerned on this site that “we despise the words of plainness” in this forum? How do you stop yourself from wanting to know some of these things?
Don’t stop, Heber, please, don’t stop! I agree with Heber, this is a fascinating concept. In my mind, I see the evolution of Jewish theology, etc. as a rote exercise trying to find first, perfect obedience and now, perfect divination (proving the theory of “chosen people”). In both cases, the touchy-feely of Christianity and, specifically, the feely part of Mormonism, is lost as there is an intellectual exercise of how to obey perfectly “the law” (which was so sacred) and how to prove evidentiarily the “birthright” of “chosen people”. I actually think that maybe JW’s are the more modern version of Judaism (not coincedentally, JW’s really hammer the OT).(which is fine
Ah, but don’t dismiss the O/T too quickly. The Jewish Prophet Isaiah is included profoundly in Mormon theology, by way of the Book of Mormon, (Old Testament verbatim in our Book of Mormon), and delineates responsibilities that Mormons should have regarding the Jews. We are inexorably linked, house of Ephraim visa-via the house of Judah. The stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah. Looks to me like God intended for the Jews to keep their record, and that God spoke to them, and directed them, and still must be directing them. Why else would Joseph Smith direct Orson Hyde to dedicate Jerusalem for the return of the Jews in 1834?
Aren’t the Jews supposed to be about reclaiming Jerusalem before Christ’s return, while we are supposed to be about setting up a new Jerusalem here on this the American continent? Twin events? Twin exigencies?
Seems to me that we should be in full fledged support of Zionism, both here and in Jerusalem.
I have a question. Shouldn’t Mormons unequivocally support the right of Israel to exist?
If yes, then what does that mean?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.