The Rise Of Humanism

[Damien the Leper]

From Wikipedia:

Humanistic Mormonism is a movement of Free Thinkers, Cultural Mormons, Disfellowshipped or Independents people related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Latter Day Saint groups that emphasize Mormon culture and history, but do not demand belief in a supernatural god, or the historicity of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It is based on Humanism and can be summarized in some points.

• A Mormon is someone who identifies with the history, culture and future of the LDS way of life.
  
• People possess the power and responsibility to shape their own lives independent of supernatural authority.
  
• Ethics and morality should serve human needs and choices should be based upon consideration of the consequences of actions rather than pre-ordained rules or commandments.
  
• The Bible, Book of Mormon or other religious texts are purely human and natural phenomena. Biblical and other traditional texts are the products of human activity and are best understood by scientific analysis
  

I have been reading Greg M. Epstein's book Good Without God and he provides a thought provoking argument to dispell the often used accusations against humanist philosophy. Alongside it, I have been reading Susan Jacoby's Free Thinkers: A History of Human Secularism and I'm fascinated by the humanistic idealism in the early nation fathers.

I have not encountered anyone in a church setting or any other setting in which a Mormon also identified themself as a humanist as well.

Has anyone on this board?

Also, I was intrigued to find the Mormon Transhumanist Association.

From the site:

Transhumanist Declaration

1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
   
2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
   
3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some ofthese scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
   
4. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
   
5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
   
6. Policymaking ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
   
7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
   
8. We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives.
   

Any thoughts?

[Pahoran]

Any thoughts?

Two thoughts: first, I think it's a bit odd to start the same thread twice. I assume this was inadvertent. You might like to ask the mods to remove one (or merge them if both have responses by the time they get around to it.)

Second, I think that it's a bit self-serving to dogmatically reject key LDS beliefs and then provide a broad definition of "Mormon," as in "A Mormon is someone who identifies with the history, culture and future of the LDS way of life," merely in order to allow "Mormons" to include people who are in no sense Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Meeeeeee! <-- a thread I have unconscionably let languish (I'm in class right now, darnit.)

I believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible as actual history (though of course given "in the language" and "after the weakness" of the people who compiled them), but I don't believe that anything "supernatural" exists (how can anything exist "above" nature?) Miracles like the transmission of the Book of Mormon, while not currently understood, will one day be explained through "naturalistic" means. Despite the fact that Post-Apostasy Christian theologians have made "philosophical materialism" a dirty word in a great deal of religion, Joseph Smith restored the idea that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter."

I think there is a huge untapped potential for the Church to court rationalists, skeptics, and humanists at least as much as the evangelical Christians we seem so often to be trying to court despite the fact that they usually want nothing to do with a "sci-fi religion" like us. Part of the reason is that we have an utterly different view of Godhood than they do - God is not the "creator" of our Uncreated Intelligences. He is not ontologically unique. We have true free will, and inasmuch as we are not the saviors of men, we are as salt that has lost its savor (D&C). The great principle of happiness, as Joseph Smith said, was in having a [human] body - we must be engendered in a tabernacle in order to develop sympathy for our fellows.

I joined the Church because it aligns so beautifully with humanist beliefs. In some ways, we're the ultimate humanists - we love other humans so much that we believe that we, our friends, neighbors, and family can - if we are loving enough - become Gods. And Godhood is not the tyrannical Godhood of many traditions, but rather loving adoptive parenthood. I love it.

Edited January 19, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Cobalt-70]

I think there is a broad spectrum of ways in which humanism could intersect with Mormonism. Mormonism is not the same humanism that scientific rationalism is, but in a broad sense, Mormonism is among the most humanistic of religions. In Mormon theology, after all, God is just a man like the rest of us, and each human has the potential to obtain every bit of the power and knowledge that God has now. Unlike traditional Christianity, Mormonism is not for God's will and pleasure; rather, it is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." The Mormon model of priesthood is also highly humanistic. Priesthood is the power to act as gods and goddesses--it is the power of humanity, not the power of God. Likewise, as reinforced by the influential writings of early 20th century theologian John Widtsoe, Mormonism is a naturalistic and materialistic religion. All things are natural and material, and everything follows a natural law. There is nothing that transcends the material world transacted by humanity.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Damien the Leper]

Two thoughts: first, I think it's a bit odd to start the same thread twice. I assume this was inadvertent. You might like to ask the mods to remove one (or merge them if both have responses by the time they get around to it.)

I already took care of it by reporting to the mods. I had no intention to post the thread twice.

Second, I think that it's a bit self-serving to dogmatically reject key LDS beliefs and then provide a broad definition of "Mormon," as in "A Mormon is someone who identifies with the history, culture and future of the LDS way of life," merely in order to allow "Mormons" to include people who are in no sense Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

Good thing that's just your opinion and not official.

[Sky]

Any thoughts?

"Humanistic Mormonism" appears to have a lot in common with the New Order Mormon movement.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Sky

[mfbukowski]

Yessssirrreee, a True Blue Humanist- that's Meeee

[mfbukowski]

If God is human, than humanism is theology

I wrote that.

Brilliant huh?

[Damien the Leper]

Yessssirrreee, a True Blue Humanist- that's Meeee

Are you being sarcastic?

[mfbukowski]

"Humanistic Mormonism" appears to have a lot in common with the New Order Mormon movement.

Nah. Not for me.

[mfbukowski]

Are you being sarcastic?

Nope

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"If God is human, than humanism is theology."

I do think that's pretty brilliant.

[Pahoran]

I already took care of it by reporting to the mods. I had no intention to post the thread twice.

That's what I thought.

Good thing that's just your opinion and not official.

Snippy! You asked for "Any thoughts," didn't you? If you only wanted favourable thoughts, why didn't you say so?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I wrote this a while back:

The more I study "American Philosophy"- ie: Pragmatism, the more it is totally clear to me that Joseph had to be an American, as quoted above. The outlook of the "raw frontier" to be conquered is mirrored in "matter unorganized" waiting to be organized, and the view that Man is God and creator of the universe all fit together perfectly. And of course there are obvious parallels in all of humanism. In fact, this may be a good time to post something I have been meaning to get to for awhile. Recently on another thread, there was some talk of Humanism and the Humanistic Manifesto, written in 1933. A hundred years before that manifesto, another "philosopher" named Joseph, not only saw the importance of the same principles, but also carried the position further by harmonizing the yet-to-be-written manifesto with, of all things, Christianity. On this basis alone Joseph can be seen even in a secular sense to be a "prophet", forseeing ideas yet to be written. I will post a section of that Manifesto (in blue) and insert into it the parallels with Mormonism.

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

The Mormon position is a hybrid of this view and the traditional Christian view- the universe is "organized" out of unorganized matter.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

Adam was created out of the dust of this world, and God works according to natural processes. The King Follette Discourse can also be seen here- the notion that Gods and matter has always existed and that man and God both are perpetuated according to natural, continuous, processes.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

There is no such thing as immaterial matter, and spirit is indeed "matter" but more refined. We affirm the unity of "reality as experience" both subjectively and objectively defined

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

It is clear to me that linguistic constructivism sheds light on the Mormon view of God organizing reality in a social setting. Abraham 4

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

Mormons believe that all the principles we believe could be theoretically proven by science- but science has not yet developed the tools to do so.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

"All creeds are abominable" - Mormonism can be seen in terms of Dewey's reconstruction of philosophy, as well as the restoration of truth.

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

A very Mormon notion- seeking out of the best books- study everything, all of truth is one whole.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

Mormons would agree with this, but certainly deny any implications contained of no after-life. We are here to do our best during this life, but also do better in the next. In fact, a goal of exaltation is beyond the dreams of secular humanists. Our goal is perfection in the here and now, and exaltation in the afterlife.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

Pretty clear disagreement here I think. But I think it IS interesting that they acknowledge a presence of "religious emotion". On that we would agree.They just channel inappropriately because of a lack of understanding.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

Total disagreement here, unless one sees all Mormon ideas as "not supernatural" in principle due to our materialism and due to undiscovered science. It is interesting however that again, they are acknowledging "religious emotions" but understanding them in a "natural" way.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

The pragmatic common sense of Brigham Young comes to mind, but of course the attitude here seems to be anti-religous

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

Couldn't get more "Mormon" than this. Alma 24 completely.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

Mormonism restores the truth, all other creeds should be "reconstituted" or "reconstructed" through converting the world. More Alma 32 implied.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

This certainly fits with what Mormons believe about the Millenium and living the law of consecration, but for now, I think we would disagree overall with this point of view. Nevertheless, both positions are ultimately utopian, believing in communal life on earth.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow. One could substitute "Mormonism" for "humanism" in most of this document and have it all fit perfectly

This is a link to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

The sections in blue above are found in that link

Edited January 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

"If God is human, than humanism is theology."

I do think that's pretty brilliant.

Shucks, thanks!

[Damien the Leper]

Snippy! You asked for "Any thoughts," didn't you? If you only wanted favourable thoughts, why didn't you say so?

I stated what I did due to the fact that you didn't engage the subject but rather stated a biased and dismissive argument. I don't mind if you aren't in favor of humanism, but drive by comments of disagreement, however insulting (i.e., self-serving) are not what I'm looking for in dialogue. If you can provide an argument more thought provoking with reasonable tone then I'm more willing to entertain you.

So, do you have any indepth thoughts to actually contribute or do you simply stand by your comment of humanistic Mormonism being self serving and have nothing more to say?

[Pahoran]

I stated what I did due to the fact that you didn't engage the subject but rather stated a biased and dismissive argument. I don't mind if you aren't in favor of humanism, but drive by comments of disagreement, however insulting (i.e., self-serving) are not what I'm looking for in dialogue. If you can provide an argument more thought provoking with reasonable tone then I'm more willing to entertain you.

So, do you have any indepth thoughts to actually contribute or do you simply stand by your comment of humanistic Mormonism being self serving and have nothing more to say?

I reject your dismissive mischaracterisation of my comments; but I stand by what I actually said. Your self-styled "Mormon humanists" define "Mormon" as "someone who identifies with the history, culture and future of the LDS way of life," and then spend the next three of their four points rejecting just about everything that defines anyone as a Latter-day Saint.

So it is apparent to me that their attempt to co-opt (or hijack) the term "Mormon" for themselves may serve some need of their own, but it doesn't actually communicate anything relevant to anyone else.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

Cafeteria Mormonism.

(I'll have the jello, the cookie and the pie. No brussel sprouts for me thanks!)

Edited January 20, 2012 by DaddyG

[selek1]

I think there is a broad spectrum of ways in which humanism could intersect with Mormonism.

I agree, The inverse, however, is not as readily apparent.

In Mormon theology, after all, God is just a man like the rest of us

The idea that God is "just" anything is anathema to true Mormon theology and belief.

, and each human has the potential to obtain every bit of the power and knowledge that God has now.

Ummm. not quite. Actual Mormon doctrine states that we have the opportunity to become joint heirs with Christ, and therefore "heirs to all that the Father hath". That's a far cry from the assumption that we will gain "every bit of the power and knowledge that God has now". There is nothing in Mormon theology that states we will EVER become equal to our Heavenly Father or in any way supplant him.

Priesthood is the power to act as gods and goddesses--it is the power of humanity, not the power of God.

Incorrect and inaccurate. The Priesthood is delegated authority, not inherent. We are commissioned and authorized to act in God's name. Any authority to act as gods or goddesses is derived from God, and therefore the power of God, not humanity.

As usual, your ersatz doctrine is close enough to be mistaken for the genuine article by those merely skimming the surface, but the counterfeit can't pass a learned examination.

Edited January 20, 2012 by selek1

[mfbukowski]

Central to humanism is the idea that man is god, and that it is man who socially "organizes" reality as we know it- in many sets of ideas which relate to something very vaguely defined as "postmodernism"; also implied is the idea that the purpose of life is to improve ourselves and in so doing improve mankind.

What is missing in that forumla obviously, is the divine. I think we have a kind of "Divine Humanism" which parallels secular humanism, but of course it is fundamentally different in many ways.

You can look at it in two ways- I choose to see humanism as possibly a way to spread the gospel if we could ever develop a message which would communicate to humanists, by showing them that our beliefs are not that different from theirs, with the dimension of the true potential divinity of mankind included.

On the other hand, there are some here I am sure that would see humanism as a kind of "counterfeit gospel" mimicking the Truth and perverting it in the process, as perhaps Communism can be seen as a counterfeit version of the Law of Consecration.

It's the old problem of half empty or half full.

Edited January 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Priesthood is the power to act as gods and goddesses--it is the power of humanity, not the power of God.

Uh, I don't think so. I would like to see THAT backed up by a Mormon reference- you aren't going to find it.

[mfbukowski]

I agree, The inverse, however, is not as readily apparent.

The idea that God is "just" anything is anathema to true Mormon theology and belief.

Ummm. not quite. Actual Mormon doctrine states that we have the opportunity to become joint heirs with Christ, and therefore "heirs to all that the Father hath". That's a far cry from the assumption that we will gain "every bit of the power and knowledge that God has now". There is nothing in Mormon theology that states we will EVER become equal to our Heavenly Father or in any way supplant him.

Incorrect and inaccurate. The Priesthood is delegated authority, not inherent. We are commissioned and authorized to act in God's name. Any authority to act as gods or goddesses is derived from God, and therefore the power of God, not humanity.

As usual, your ersatz doctrine is close enough to be mistaken for the genuine article by those merely skimming the surface, but the counterfeit can't pass a learned examination.

Just for the record, I agree with your points.

[Cobalt-70]

Ummm. not quite. Actual Mormon doctrine states that we have the opportunity to become joint heirs with Christ, and therefore "heirs to all that the Father hath". That's a far cry from the assumption that we will gain "every bit of the power and knowledge that God has now". There is nothing in Mormon theology that states we will EVER become equal to our Heavenly Father or in any way supplant him.

That's not what I said. I said that humans would have every bit of knowledge and power that God has now. By the time we have that knowledge and power, however, Joseph Smith's theological framework says that God will have moved on to a higher level.

Incorrect and inaccurate. The Priesthood is delegated authority, not inherent. We are commissioned and authorized to act in God's name. Any authority to act as gods or goddesses is derived from God, and therefore the power of God, not humanity.

I'm talking about priesthood power, not authority, and I didn't say it was inherent authority. Priesthood authority over other people, according to Joseph Smith, requires keys, which are delegated and passed down. Sometimes, they are passed down through lineage. Other times, they are passed by the laying on of hands, or through visions, or through someone dying. Sometimes people are foreordained with priesthood authority (Alma 13:3; Abr. 3:23, and don't forget the authority of Jesus himself).

Priesthood power, however, is something entirely different than authority, and indeed it may be an inherent (but possibly dormant) power within all humans. Joseph Smith said, "The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity." But Smith also said that God was once a man. So if God always had priesthood, then Smith must have believed that priesthood is an inherent (but possibly dormant) power within even pre-mortal intelligences.

The "power in the priesthood," is unlocked through the gnosis of the temple ceremony and through righteousness, or through revelation. It is not, ultimately, a delegated power, because Mormon theology teaches that priesthood is the power by which gods create worlds (JD 15:127). It is the power of a god, and since each man and woman is a nascent god within Mormonism, it is therefore the power of humans.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

Any thoughts?

Just another way to give humanisim a fresh coat of paint.

I’m sure the more headway the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes in the world, the more hangers-on there will be to ride the coattails; the more ambitious, creative and free spirits will tinker with it for their own vainglory; and the more aficionados of tread-worn philosophies and trends will reinvent themselves with a patina of Mormonism to give it a fresh, new look. Instead of breaking the mold, they will cram themselves into it, though the reasons for doing so remain the same.

[selek1]

That's not what I said. I said that humans would have every bit of knowledge and power that God has now. By the time we have that knowledge and power, however, Joseph Smith's theological framework says that God will have moved on to a higher level.

Actually, the idea that God is progressing (or as you put it "moving on") is not something that is taught by the LDS Church. In fact, it is considered a heresy.

I'm talking about priesthood power, not authority, and I didn't say it was inherent authority.

This is a distinction without a difference. Without authority, the priesthood has no power.

Joseph Smith said, "The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity." But Smith also said that God was once a man. So if God always had priesthood, then Smith must have believed that priesthood is an inherent (but possibly dormant) power within even pre-mortal intelligences.

Actually, this argument ignores the fundamental fact that Joseph (and the Church) teach that there was never a time when God was not God.

Your reasoning is predicated on a false assumption- and a repetition of your earlier error: God was never "just a man".

The "power in the priesthood," is unlocked through the gnosis of the temple ceremony and through righteousness, or through revelation. It is not, ultimately, a delegated power, because Mormon theology teaches that priesthood is the power by which gods create worlds (JD 15:127). It is the power of a god, and since each man and woman is a nascent god within Mormonism, it is therefore the power of humans.

And yet even the most righteous Temple-goer, with the gift of revelation at his side, has neither power nor authority on his own.

No man (or woman, for that matter) can access that awesome power unless God delegates that authority to him.

Your conclusion is fallacious.