- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Rix, I probably should write a separate post about this, but I am amused often by the charges that Mormonism is becoming more Protestant when I see SO much movement within Protestantism that is embracing fundamentally Mormon concepts. I still remember listening to a southern evangelical preacher on the radio years ago who was slamming the Mormons at the beginning of his broadcast for being such an evil cult then encouraging his listeners to spend one night per week with their families engaging in wholesome family activities, prayer and reading the Bible – since James Dobson had been inspired by God to think of this idea.
Rix, thanks for the post–I like the article. I think the article has valid points about the evolving nature of American’s and religion, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of us here fit the mold this article is referencing. By that, I mean that views shared here aren’t exactly orthodox, and lots of theories/ideas are discussed and given some level of merit.
The aspect of the article that interests me is the view taken by orthodox religious people. The article says that 37% of white evangelicals believe any religion will do; I wonder what percentage of orthodox Mormons feel that way. I think a small percentage of the Church is evolving along the lines this article proposes, but I think it’s quite small. It’s inherently difficult for people to think there are many paths to heaven when they are constantly taught otherwise.
As a missionary, my companions and I would teach investigators about our church being the one True Church; to emphasize this, we would have a little demonstration map of roads that led to other places and if those roads rerouted to “heaven” without joining up with the Mormon road, then they weren’t allowed to enter. Obviously we were highly enthusiastic teenagers that believed in the literal truth of what we were taught, so this lesson made perfect sense to us. I think a large portion of devout, active Mormons feel somewhat like this–maybe not the extreme I took it to–but somewhere in the same vicinity.
I hope that the Church continues to evolve so that it inherently focuses less on one truth, and more on the importance a belief system–any type, any creed–can have in helping people maximize their happiness/satisfaction in this life that we currently have.
wordsleuth23 wrote:I think the article has valid points about the evolving nature of American’s and religion, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of us here fit the mold this article is referencing. By that, I mean that views shared here aren’t exactly orthodox, and lots of theories/ideas are discussed and given some level of merit.
Yes, that’s what I’ve enjoyed here — discussion about things that were never possible years ago.
Like you, my mission experience was a constant hammering of “we have the one and only truth.” I was in Japan, and a universal saying was “there are many paths that lead to the top of Mt. Fuji, but they all get there.” They lived this philosophy — really believed that our ways were right for us and theirs theirs. It was a concept hard to swallow for me then, but probably the first cog-dis that started my spiritual transition. I’ve often thought that the missionary program itself, paradoxically, is the tool that begins many of us thinking outside the box…simply because we have to relate to our investigators to be successful…and we have empathy. Then we bring it back home and incorporate it into our own paradigm.
I also think a factor in the evolving nature of religion is the shrinking of the world. We push a button on a cell phone and talk to a person half-way around the world. The internet unites all the cultures. So I think it makes each of us more respectful of others, which also means we see they may be good people too, and their path may be just as valid as ours.
Tom Haws wrote:jmb275 wrote:I generally have very little to say about various eschatological theories. The fact is, I don’t know, and don’t really feel like I can know. Until we discover a way for people to die, bring them back, and have them retain their consciousness (without the brain, which seems quite unlikely), I don’t think we’ll have a real clear picture on it.
jmb, I realize that everybody has their own cup of tea their own way, but statements like this make me wonder if people are really up on the latest data. I read the other day a philosophical article from about 1925 that I can’t put my finger on at the moment, and if I understood correctly, the general gist was about what you said above. Essentially, “we don’t know anything, there’s no data. Very few people claim to have seen the Master of the Universe. It’s not testable. It’s not study-able.”
I am a humanist. I agree with the spiritual idea that eschatological pretzels are yucky. I agree that now is the day and the time of our salvation. But I am also a scientist. And when there is data, I believe it shouldn’t be ignored.
This is the 21st century. Things are changing. Old paradigms don’t always hold true any more. There may be more evidence than you think. At the same time, you can’t put old wine into new bottles. Looking at new evidence with old paradigms doesn’t work. The paradigms have to change. What is God? What am I? Who are you? The old theological and philosophical constants such as “omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent” may no longer work. Seek and we shall find. Ask and we shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto us.
Love it…love ALL of it! Thanks Tom!
Old-Timer wrote:Rix, I probably should write a separate post about this, but I am amused often by the charges that Mormonism is becoming more Protestant when I see SO much movement within Protestantism that is embracing fundamentally Mormon concepts.
I still remember listening to a southern evangelical preacher on the radio years ago who was slamming the Mormons at the beginning of his broadcast for being such an evil cult then encouraging his listeners to spend one night per week with their families engaging in wholesome family activities, prayer and reading the Bible – since James Dobson had been inspired by God to think of this idea.
So true, Ray! I had always thought so many of the rituals/processes in the LDS church were so bizarre to the outside world. Then I started attending and listening to other Christian churches. I felt more “normal” than they were!
I actually believe that most religions are becoming more alike lately. Maybe not the rituals, but the philosophies and teachings. We are evolving to view scripture as metaphor rather than literal — possibly because science isn’t melding with much of scripture. I remember a phrase by Christian theologist Marcus Borg:
“The Bible is true, and some of it happened.”
hawkgrrrl wrote:Are we becoming more and more enlightened or should we be ready to drop a few levels on the food chain in the next life? To me, that’s a notion of accountability and growth.
Yes, me too! I think there are aspects to enlightenment that are unifying in each spiritual tradition; being kind to others, being healthy, communion with God…and just living the Golden Rule — can’t go very wrong with that!
Would a thread on “The Near Death Experience” be too polarized? There is much we could explore if it can be done in the wonderful way customary of this community/ Tom Haws wrote:Would a thread on “The Near Death Experience” be too polarized? There is much we could explore if it can be done in the wonderful way customary of this community/
I think that sounds like a great thread.
wordsleuth23 wrote:I think that sounds like a great thread.
Me, too! Cause I’ve been holding back…
😆 😳 😆 Tom Haws wrote:However, you seem pretty comfortable with your current atheistic model. I say go with it as long as it seems best to you.
I hope I’m not coming across as atheistic. I wouldn’t consider myself an atheist at all (although I agree with some parts of it if we take it as a “religion”).I do want to understand your view, and I have only briefly looked at NDEs. I have only read a few. Your second point is very important, indeed we are not after “proof” but what is “most likely.”
I must confess, I am less interested (to determine the cause of NDEs) in reading the NDEs themselves (this is like reading 100 TBM testimonies to decide if the church is true), and more interested in reading some good scientific analysis. Would you be able to point in the direction of some good scientific analysis to support your point? You mentioned a few individuals, but is there anything published in a science journal or anything you could direct me too?
Tom Haws wrote:Would a thread on “The Near Death Experience” be too polarized? There is much we could explore if it can be done in the wonderful way customary of this community/
Thy will be done!!jmb275 wrote:I am less interested (to determine the cause of NDEs) in reading the NDEs themselves (this is like reading 100 TBM testimonies to decide if the church is true), and more interested in reading some good scientific analysis.
Let me grub around. But I think that is a fascinating sentence to think about!
1. What is my interest?
Determine the cause?
Understand my fellow beings?
Get insights for my own life?
Prove my church is true?
Prove (for myself at least) death isn’t the end?
2. 100 TBM testimonies
I can just picture JMB reading 100 TBM testimonies. What would happen?
-You might get an insight or two (personally/spiritually speaking)
-You might draw some conclusions (both admirable and scary) about the LDS religion (sociologically or anthropologically speaking)
-You would NOT conclude the LDS Church is the One True church (I hope)
Likewise with the NDE (I hope)
-You might get an insight or two about new possibilities for “God” and “spirituality” and “you”
-You might draw some conclusions about people
-You would NOT (I hope) conclude that the NDE is the One True source.
OK. Here’s one by Morse about pediatrics and the NDE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4003364 But go tothe Wikipedia articleTom, interesting thoughts (as always). It made me think about “proofs” and how to determine truth. Wiki states:
Quote:In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is,
a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture. Proofs employ logic but usually include some amount of natural language which usually admits some ambiguity. In fact, the vast majority of proofs in written mathematics can be considered as applications of rigorous informal logic. Purely formal proofs, written in symbolic language instead of natural language, are considered in proof theory. The distinction between formal and informal proofs has led to much examination of current and historical mathematical practice, quasi-empiricism in mathematics, and so-called folk mathematics (in both senses of that term).
I wonder if we should be saying in our testimonies…”I
conjecturethis church is true.” Heber13 wrote:Tom, interesting thoughts (as always). It made me think about “proofs” and how to determine truth.
Wiki states:
Quote:In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is,
a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture. Proofs employ logic but usually include some amount of natural language which usually admits some ambiguity. In fact, the vast majority of proofs in written mathematics can be considered as applications of rigorous informal logic. Purely formal proofs, written in symbolic language instead of natural language, are considered in proof theory. The distinction between formal and informal proofs has led to much examination of current and historical mathematical practice, quasi-empiricism in mathematics, and so-called folk mathematics (in both senses of that term).
I wonder if we should be saying in our testimonies…”I
conjecturethis church is true.”
LOL, that’s great Heber. I think a lot of it comes down to inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is not reliable, but it is useful at times. There is one method of inductive reasoning that is reliable, and proven mathematically (Bayesian inference, but our brains don’t always do this very well). The problem with avoiding inductive reasoning is that it tends to throw away information contained in the premises on the grounds that the logic is bad. The argument against that is “yeah, it’s not logically sound, but there is some information contained therein that might help me.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.