What could be bad about hope?

From my religious discussion group, one time (it might’ve been two weeks ago, but I just haven’t gotten around to discussing it), we started talking about hope. My mentor insisted that in this religious harmony thing we’ve been trying to broker, believing in God and having a religion must be “better” than not beleiving or not having a religion. As I’ve written previously, however, if his or anyone else’s idea of religious harmony simply scapegoats atheists, then it isn’t very harmonious at all.

Anyway, I treid to tease from him (and some of the others) why he would believe that. And he said, “I just don’t see any reason for atheism. It seems like a waste. To believe in nothing. There is no hope.”

While of course, I made sure to point out that atheism isn’t believing in nothing…rather, it is not believing in gods and divinity…but I thought about his point. What is it about hope?

Does this audience really exist?

I was going through Internet Monk, as I occasionally do, and I came across this post: Curious Minds Want to Know: Does the IM Audience REALLY Exist?

With some changes in nearly all the particulars, I think the message strongly applies to the post/ex/former/liberal/middle way/new order Mormon experience.

Now, they/we know. There are thousands of us at a thousand different places in the evangelical wilderness. Our experiences in evangelicalism weren’t exactly what we originally thought. Given a place to stop, listen and talk, it turns out there are many of us, not just a few. No one seems to have a map, everyone seems to have a story. Very few of us want to go back to whatever evangelicalism was when we were happily going along with the show.

We are simply here, and we’re greatly strengthened by the stories we’re hearing and the reality we’ve discovered can’t be questioned.

Whenever I write, I’m aware of this. An audience exists around this web site and around some of what I have written, who understand what the wilderness experience means. They do not all want or even understand the post-evangelical label. They do not all agree with me or my pessimism about the future. They are not a “movement.” (Good grief.) They are not all reading Brian Mclaren, or N.T. Wright or Don Miller. They are not all anything, any denomination or any common complaint. They are not some common hoard of emerging caricatures.

Another look at the success of strict churches

When I first read Laurence Iannaccone’s “Why Strict Churches Are Strong” (PDF alert), I was quite enamored with it. I guess I don’t know why I haven’t written a post on it (or maybe I have, but can’t find it). Anyway, I was reading an article from the St. Louis Today that referenced this research.

Iannaccone compared churches along a continuum of strictness, which he sometimes calls “distinctiveness,” and which includes among other items dietary guidelines, dress and grooming practices, time commitments, and standards of sexual morality.  The result of these distinctive membership requirements is that members tend to orient their lives fully around the institution, sometimes crowding out other pursuits and relationships. For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this separation is a direct goal: the young Witness in my home explained how his family socialized primarily with other Witnesses and avoided interreligious activities.   For Mormons, the separation is an indirect effect: we’re strongly encouraged to make personal connections in our neighborhoods, and many of us do, but our distinctive way of life and the time we devote to serving in the church mean that often—not always—our social lives center mostly around our ward, or congregation.

What Iannaccone found was that the strictness of a church correlated positively with increased commitment, greater contributions of resources and time, and closer ties to the group.  The strict behavioral guidelines yielded higher benefits to members.  To understand why this is so, consider how much of a person’s experience at church depends on what others bring to the board: friendly greetings, musical gifts, excellent teaching, social support, solidarity, enthusiasm, love.  Strict behavioral requirements have the effect of retaining only the members who are most committed, most enthusiastic, most engaged.  Those who choose to participate fully reap the rewards of a vibrant community life.

Of course, the author disagrees with one area:

I don’t want my money back.

The other day Madam Curie had a blog post, “Keep moving forward.” Therein she discussed the trend from certain ex-Mormons to describe their experience within Mormonism as victimization, and she wrote about her resolution not to see herself as a victim.

A commenter, Chandelle, wrote something I thought was pretty insightful.

Madam Curie, I feel much the same way you do about your membership. I don’t have regrets. Well, that’s not true. I do regret that I subsumed myself, my identity and my ethics, to the Church. I regret that I quieted my tensions, that I never spoke out and gave a voice to my concerns. But I don’t regret joining the Church or the years I spent within the system. If not for the Church, I wouldn’t have met my partner, and I might not have had children. How could I ever regret that? Without the Church, I might not have had the opportunity – the need, really – to so clearly define my individual beliefs and ethics. I only did that against enormous opposition. The Church has been instrumental in so many important transformations in my life. I’m not a victim. I don’t want my money back.

If your religious harmony simply scapegoats atheists…

…then your religious harmony isn’t harmonious at all.

My religious discussion group has been trying to temper out a way to seek religious harmony. I’ve been a bit skeptical of the efforts, because the mentor of the group (who is the one with this lofty goal) doesn’t realize that his own religious views are not so harmonious with others’.

The mentor believes that people have a “god within them,” that grows and progresses as the individual grows and progresses. This “god within,” (which he claims is called different things by different religions but is indicative of a similar idea)…actually doesn’t seem like much of a god at all. It is not perfect, not omniscient, not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent, but simply represents an individual at a stage in time.

But, despite the oddness (and dubious theism) of this definition of god, the real issue is that it doesn’t mesh well with what others do project in gods.

A god within does not mesh well with the externally existing god that most theists propose. A god within that is only as powerful, as virtuous, as enlightened as the person who listens to it is quite foreign from the omnibenevolent, potent, and knowing classical formulations of god. To reduce the classical formulations of god to these anemic “gods within” doesn’t promote harmony — it actually is a certain deal-breaker for most theists.

What is the Final Destination for Ex-Mormons and Apostates?

My latest post…but it’s at Mormon Matters. Discuss either here or there.

It seems the crowd at Mormon Matters has very reasonable beliefs on things. But I’m wondering…if I polled all members (not just people who are likely to surf the online Mormon blogs, say), would I get similar answers? Do Mormons truly believe in such an inclusive afterlife? Will Hell (or Outer Darkness) truly be so sparsely populated?

The so-called destructiveness of gay marriage

In response to the LDS church’s seemingly monumental support of certain gay rights (“common sense” anti-discrimination measures — they haven’t said anything about civil unions and they are sticking to their guns against gay marriage), which others commented on elsewhere, there was a terrific post on Mormon Matters from a guest writer, John Gustav-Wrathall, about the Gay Rights Paradox.

In the Mormon Matters discussion, I saw the sharks swarm around John…see, I don’t have anything against the commenter Jared as a person, but he does seem to telegraph his strategies in advance. Now, his current hypothesis he is espousing is that he feels when people take “radical” positions, it is because they failed to consult the scriptures. If one consulted the scriptures, then they would have no problem following the Prophet and believing in the church’s position.

I wanted to warn John about this tactic…but John didn’t fall for the bait. He took the discussion offline (where, I guess the two may be emailing back and forth now.)

Well, I went to John’s short post linking to the Mormon Matters discussion from his blog. Despite the short post with no additional information added, there was a bit of a discussion going on here. And here I saw that Christopher Bigelow had commented.

What responsibilities do we have to our communities?

I was reading a great article from Mormon Matters about some of the old Mormon pioneers and the handcart companies. Honestly, I’ll be the first to admit that that period of history doesn’t really interest me…so the constant emphasis on the pioneers in the church doesn’t do much for me.

So I guess I haven’t really dived deeply into what the pioneer stood for before. The post at Mormon Matters was a good opportunity for me to get a glimpse. One part that was interesting…

I admire Levi Savage for following his leaders even when he knew they were wrong because he wanted to serve the other Saints when they would need it.  He did not leave those people who he loved because he could not agree with others who had openly chastised him.  This sets up a model for me of how I feel that I can respond to the challenges of this kind.  I am not advocating a blind obedience because I think it is important to challenge incorrect thinking; but when that is done, I sense that it is important to maintain fellowship in order to help those who may be hurt in the future by incorrect or mis-informed decisions.  I should note that this is how I feel and that others rightful [sic] do not feel the same.

Atheists are God’s whistleblowers

There’s this quotation that I’ve seen twice now…first from a USAToday article, and then from the New York Times. Samir Selmanovic, who I have previously never heard of, writes that:

Atheism at its best grabs us by the collar and throws us to the ground, demanding to see lives well lived, forcing us to dig deeper and live up to the best of our own religions…Atheists are God’s whistleblowers.

What a job, what a job.

But again, let’s take it in context…it’s not really for God. At least, not for God as any externally existing thing. Rather, it is for God as an idea propagated by people who have the chance to get things rather counterintuitive if left to their own devices. I have seen a similar sentiment yet again (so I guess the third time truly is the charm and this is why I’m making this post), at the blog Young Stranger.

Happy Birthday, Irresistible (Dis)Grace!

One year ago today, I got this crazy idea…what if I could start a blog about my thoughts of being a Mormon, but of not being a Mormon…my lack of understanding of my culture and heritage, but my forced and ingrained living of my culture and heritage. I wondered if I could meet a different kind of believer than the ones in my ward (no offense to them), and I wondered if I could meet a different kind of nonbelievers than the ones in the…well, I don’t know what non-believer wards are (but I mean no offense to them either.)

And so, I started Irresistible (Dis)Grace. I didn’t really know what I was doing, how far I’d get, or how long I’d even last (after all, this blog had a specific niche, and I thought I would run out of “topics”).

Well, apparently, if nothing else, at least I reached the 1 year mark!