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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
This is a snippet from Dale McGowan’s recent article, “The Unconditional Love of Reality.”
I was unconditionally smitten with reality and began at some point working on the Big Question: Does God exist?If I had any predisposition, it was the usual human one: a desire that it all be true. How could I have stood at that casket and wished for anything but the existence of God, since that might continue the existence of my father? But my love of reality naturally came with a serious distaste for self-deception. The truth itself is more beautiful than an illusion, even when that truth is uncomfortable. I would be thrilled if there was a God; I would be thrilled if there wasn’t. I just wanted to know.
In short, I took the question seriously.
Three obstacles presented themselves immediately. The first was the claim that the question simply can’t be asked. “It’s not that kind of question,” I remember a Sunday school teacher telling our class, without explaining what that could possibly mean. For the sake of the inquiry, I had to assume that was untrue and see what would happen if I asked it.
The second obstacle was the wrath of God. Doubt is a sin, probing questions an offense to the divine. After some thought, I decided that God was unlikely to be so insecure or frankly egotistical as to punish me eternally just because I was honestly wrong about him.
The third hurdle was the notion that even if it were a question like any other, there was simply no way to answer it. You can neither prove nor disprove God.
I was in high school before I surmounted that one. I realized I didn’t have to answer the question “Does God exist?” Must we believe all assertions that can’t be disproven? Russell’s Teapot says no. So a perfectly askable and appropriate question was “Why do other people believe in God, and are those reasons convincing?”
This is really the deal. Many people confuse the question at hand. It’s not whether something exist…but whether we are persuaded to believe something exists.
This is a quotation from a commenter and guest podcaster, Brian, at the Mormon Expression podcast on Fowler’s Stages of Faith (speaking of which, I need to listen to this when I have the chance!).
The transition from 4 to 5 is often prompted by being tired of the flatness of the color and flavor of faith caused by hyper rationalism, from deconstructing everything into pieces, and from constantly pointing out that the great and powerful Oz is “just” a man behind the curtain.
I think one of the best examples is the Christmas holiday. Why would a grown adult participate in the Christmas holiday when they know that Christ wasn’t actually born on December 25th, and there really isn’t a man named Santa Claus that flies around delivering presents? It’s either true or it’s false, right? It’s false. But then we might find out that participating in all the holiday fun actually brings us “peace on earth, goodwill towards man.” (whatever that means). We end up experiencing the “Spirit of Christmas.” We loop right back around to Christmas being true still, even though we know that Santa Claus isn’t real.
This quote’s interesting to think about (true =/= useful…and false =/= useless). I’d simply disagree is on the applicability and usefulness of untrue things.
This semester, I have been part of a religious discussion group as part of one of my scholarships. In this group, our mentor has given us the challenge of trying to come up with an answer to the question: How can we promote universal harmony among the major religions? We base our discussion on sections of Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God.
We aren’t anywhere near finished (we’ve just finished the sections relating to Judaism and we will be moving to Christianity and Islam in future discussion groups), yet I already seem to be drawing some things from the book.
I can understand why my professor appreciates this book…he has shared with us parts of his personal philosophy that just make sense why he enjoys it. However…this also provides my contention with the book.
Wright’s arguments rely on several interpretations and assumptions…Wright often sets up novel re-interpretations of the stories surrounding religions (although I guess I shouldn’t say novel…these re-interpretations represent some of the research in the various fields, but often times, they don’t necessarily represent what the main stream believer would believe.) Without the interpretations (sometimes which are “what ifs”, Wright’s argument ceases to leave the ground. Read the rest of this entry »
Nearly all of the trendy career, networking, interviewing, and job seeking websites will talk about the need to establish a personal brand. It is essential for a candidate to put his or her best foot forward.
Some of the ways to improve or establish a personal brand are intuitive, but at some point…I have to ask, what is the point?
When I was preparing to network and interview for internships with my school’s professional program last spring, my professors taught all of us the basic “rules.” These rules aren’t rocket science; I think everyone knows some of the basic rules for what to put vs. what to leave off on the resume. What to discuss vs. what to avoid. And so on. For example, religion is off limits. It’s a liability; it exposes you to possible discrimination or, at the very least, some kind of change in perception. Why expose yourself to that? The simple answer is don’t. In most cases, it is not important to your brand, so don’t bring it up and they won’t ask about it. Something like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…
I guess this is a “sequel” to the post: Value cultivation in a world without magic.
I was thinking about how to improve…how to get better…how to do more…
Wouldn’t it be cool if we could just pray? We could just spend twenty minutes…or an hour…or three hours…meditating and praying…secluded from the rest of the day…and that would be it to “center” and “focus” and we’d be able to take on the rest of the day?
It would be cool. That would be magical.
But what I’ve realized is that things don’t work like this. This is a shortcut. This is an unrealistic expectation.
When do we improve? When do we get better? When do we do more?
Life is when we do it. Every day. In public. On the spot. We have 3 seconds — or even less — from the time someone angers us to decide whether we will escalate in anger or whether we will count to three and walk away. We can’t meditate at the beginning of the day and then be “buffered” from what comes up on the spot. We have to be vigilant at the moment of impact. Read the rest of this entry »
