Comments on: Smoothing Out the Rough Edges http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:31:57 +0000 By: Amissio http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23980 Amissio Thu, 17 May 2007 13:51:53 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23980 Regarding the Mormons, Jonathan seems to be pretty much on my line of thinking. But I do have to clear some things up. The post implies that polygamy was the basis of Mormonism, but it really wasn't. It all goes back to the Book of Mormon - what amounts to Biblical fanfiction. Joseph Smith came up with this book that made already uber-religious Americans believe that North America had a place in the story of Christianity. Mormonism caught on because it made people feel like they were essential to Christianity. Polygamy came only after the church moved from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois. Joseph Smith was killed and Brigham Young took the Mormons out to Utah, where polygamy became very deep-seated in Mormon culture and theology. The US government cracked down on polygamy in the 1880s and 1890s and dissolved the church. The church was allowed to reincorporate only after it publicly disavowed polygamy. Nowadays the church does not support polygamy... but it doesn't completely condemn it; there is the feeling that God might hand down revelation at any time that it is fitting to take up the practice of celestial marriage again. As for the other "changes" in Mormon theology, they structure of the Church requires that nothing can ever be rescinded. They can do what they want to emphasize different aspects, but the Mormon theology itself is unchanging. That's what gets me - they hold the exact same core beliefs as they always have, but say that God works in mysterious ways and that they don't have to act on their beliefs. It's all pretty silly. Oh, and, just for laughs, the only western scripture that outright condemns polygamy is... the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith later received revelation saying that polygamy got the celestial green light. Smith wrote that "That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another." Oh silly! Regarding the Mormons, Jonathan seems to be pretty much on my line of thinking. But I do have to clear some things up.

The post implies that polygamy was the basis of Mormonism, but it really wasn't. It all goes back to the Book of Mormon - what amounts to Biblical fanfiction. Joseph Smith came up with this book that made already uber-religious Americans believe that North America had a place in the story of Christianity. Mormonism caught on because it made people feel like they were essential to Christianity.

Polygamy came only after the church moved from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois. Joseph Smith was killed and Brigham Young took the Mormons out to Utah, where polygamy became very deep-seated in Mormon culture and theology. The US government cracked down on polygamy in the 1880s and 1890s and dissolved the church. The church was allowed to reincorporate only after it publicly disavowed polygamy.

Nowadays the church does not support polygamy... but it doesn't completely condemn it; there is the feeling that God might hand down revelation at any time that it is fitting to take up the practice of celestial marriage again. As for the other "changes" in Mormon theology, they structure of the Church requires that nothing can ever be rescinded. They can do what they want to emphasize different aspects, but the Mormon theology itself is unchanging.

That's what gets me - they hold the exact same core beliefs as they always have, but say that God works in mysterious ways and that they don't have to act on their beliefs. It's all pretty silly.

Oh, and, just for laughs, the only western scripture that outright condemns polygamy is... the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith later received revelation saying that polygamy got the celestial green light. Smith wrote that "That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another." Oh silly!

]]> By: lpetrich http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23973 lpetrich Thu, 17 May 2007 04:17:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23973 To expand on Erich Vieth's point, I've come across some liberal Xians who've described their beliefs as a "language", which seems like yet more creative obfuscation. To expand on Erich Vieth's point, I've come across some liberal Xians who've described their beliefs as a "language", which seems like yet more creative obfuscation.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23910 Erich Vieth Wed, 16 May 2007 00:18:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23910 Those rough-cut doctrines are smoothed down until (as in many liberal sects) it's hard to determine if there is anything meaningful remaining. For a visual of the result, imagine Ted Haggard preaching to a congregation of Unitarians. Ouch! Watch them squirm! Smoothed down people get splinters when they mingle with rough hewn people. After generations of smoothing, what is left of literalist claims? They morph into strange vague poetry. Sometimes I ask, "Hey, but do you guys MEAN it when you say those things or not?" They can't decide. Ask your liberal Catholic friends whether Mary was really a virgin and watch for those "You Dickens!" smirks to bloom across their faces. Safely inside of their churches, they'll proudly chant that Mary was a virgin, but outside of church the claim of Mary's virginity becomes just a story to many Catholics, not something they really need to believe. Virgin birth: one of the many doctrines that has been "smoothed down." Good post! Those rough-cut doctrines are smoothed down until (as in many liberal sects) it's hard to determine if there is anything meaningful remaining. For a visual of the result, imagine Ted Haggard preaching to a congregation of Unitarians. Ouch! Watch them squirm! Smoothed down people get splinters when they mingle with rough hewn people.

After generations of smoothing, what is left of literalist claims? They morph into strange vague poetry. Sometimes I ask, "Hey, but do you guys MEAN it when you say those things or not?" They can't decide.

Ask your liberal Catholic friends whether Mary was really a virgin and watch for those "You Dickens!" smirks to bloom across their faces. Safely inside of their churches, they'll proudly chant that Mary was a virgin, but outside of church the claim of Mary's virginity becomes just a story to many Catholics, not something they really need to believe.

Virgin birth: one of the many doctrines that has been "smoothed down." Good post!

]]> By: Jonathan Blake http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23903 Jonathan Blake Tue, 15 May 2007 20:55:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23903 I can speak for the Mormon case. The church was able to make such sweeping changes to its doctrine while retaining loyalty through the combination of a belief in the infallibility of the church leadership, a belief in continuing revelation (i.e. follow the <i>living</i> prophet instead of those dead ones), a flawed epistemology which is impervious to contradicting evidence (e.g. God told me through feelings of peace that the Book of Mormon is his word, therefore any contradictory evidence must be wrong), and restricted access to the church's history. Many Mormons aren't even aware of many of the problematic doctrines which were taught early in the history of the church. The Mormon church is still in the process of quietly divesting itself of unpopular doctrines (e.g. the doctrine that God was once a man who progressed to become God). I can speak for the Mormon case. The church was able to make such sweeping changes to its doctrine while retaining loyalty through the combination of a belief in the infallibility of the church leadership, a belief in continuing revelation (i.e. follow the living prophet instead of those dead ones), a flawed epistemology which is impervious to contradicting evidence (e.g. God told me through feelings of peace that the Book of Mormon is his word, therefore any contradictory evidence must be wrong), and restricted access to the church's history. Many Mormons aren't even aware of many of the problematic doctrines which were taught early in the history of the church.

The Mormon church is still in the process of quietly divesting itself of unpopular doctrines (e.g. the doctrine that God was once a man who progressed to become God).

]]> By: Pi Guy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23897 Pi Guy Tue, 15 May 2007 10:52:04 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23897 @tobe38: That was exactly what I was thinking: <i>"We've always been at war with Eastasia.</i> @tobe38:

That was exactly what I was thinking: "We've always been at war with Eastasia.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23896 Alex Weaver Tue, 15 May 2007 07:37:05 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23896 Fortunately, from the perspective of those outside their following, the religious' imitation of the Ministry of Truth more often comes out as a Marx Brothers spoof than genuinely Orwellian. Classical Orwellian societies have a severe pragmatic impediment in that, as formulated, they depend on a level of efficiency that simply isn't achievable by humans in the forseeable future. Fortunately. O.o Fortunately, from the perspective of those outside their following, the religious' imitation of the Ministry of Truth more often comes out as a Marx Brothers spoof than genuinely Orwellian. Classical Orwellian societies have a severe pragmatic impediment in that, as formulated, they depend on a level of efficiency that simply isn't achievable by humans in the forseeable future. Fortunately. O.o

]]> By: tobe38 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23893 tobe38 Tue, 15 May 2007 06:11:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23893 Excellent post. Chilling thoughts of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 come to mind, the way that religions change their mind and then pretend there was never any problem. When religious followers are not assessing the initial claims without evidence, why should they have any problems accepting amendments without evidence? Excellent post. Chilling thoughts of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 come to mind, the way that religions change their mind and then pretend there was never any problem.

When religious followers are not assessing the initial claims without evidence, why should they have any problems accepting amendments without evidence?

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23892 Polly Tue, 15 May 2007 05:03:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/smoothing-out-the-rough-edges.html#comment-23892 Ironic isn't it? Xianity is a result of and in the midst of its own process of evolution. Ironic isn't it? Xianity is a result of and in the midst of its own process of evolution.

]]>