MORMON HUMANISM & UNIVERSALISM

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

I believe these are the current questions: 

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

The first three questions are clearly belief questions. The fourth question is a combination of belief and "praxis"—you need to believe that Thomas S. Monson is "the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and . . . the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys."

It doesn't matter if you're faithful to your spouse, pay a full tithe, don't beat your kids, don't affiliate or sympathize with polygamists, attend all your meetings, and otherwise keep your covenants. If you don't have a testimony of the reality of each member of the Godhead, of the Atonement, of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and angelic priesthood restoration, you can't get a recommend. Your good behavior isn't enough.

Sorry I used an old list.  However, what I said is still crucial.  The innocuous belief questions 1 & 2 could fit any mainstream christian communion, and are irrelevant.  Only 3 & 4 carry any distinctive value as Mormon belief questions.  All the rest are a matter of praxis, just as I pointed out.  Unlike the catechetical churches which adhere to formal creeds and demand fealty to them, the Mormons do not.  You miss the point in suggesting that, since a belief question can make or break the interview, that is determinative of the nature of the religion.  Of course that is not the way in which one correctly appraises the nature of a religion.  The dominance of praxis far outweighs the very rare demands of adherence to some particular belief.  Moreover, one does not have to have a temple recommend to be a good Mormon.  I only mention the vast majority of the recommend questions as indicative of overall emphasis.

As Elder Holland said:

Quote

we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction.  PBS interview, March 4, 2006.

 

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 8:20 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

On a just-closed thread, there was this exchange, which I would like to explore further here:

Quote

Mormonism is a humanistic and universalist religion, even though most people don't realize it.

It feels more accurate to say one can be Mormon and a humanist, or even Mormon is best applied with humanist philosophy.  But to say Mormonism is a humanist religion and most people don't realize it feels odd.  To be a humanist religion the statement or claim would have to be evident to those who live Mormonism.  As it is, it feels like most LDS accept without much question the notion that dogma trumps critical thinking and evidence.  If so, then the practice by the members is not humanism. 

Offer the question to members of "why the priesthood ban" and instead of critical thinking and evidence as a response the response most often used is "we don't know.  We only know God felt it was necessary" or something like that.  There doesnt' seem to be much thought that the ban itself should be examined and questioned, nor does it feel like there's room among most member's thoughts when it is suggested the ban was not inspired. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It feels more accurate to say one can be Mormon and a humanist, or even Mormon is best applied with humanist philosophy.  But to say Mormonism is a humanist religion and most people don't realize it feels odd.  To be a humanist religion the statement or claim would have to be evident to those who live Mormonism.  As it is, it feels like most LDS accept without much question the notion that dogma trumps critical thinking and evidence.  If so, then the practice by the members is not humanism. 

Offer the question to members of "why the priesthood ban" and instead of critical thinking and evidence as a response the response most often used is "we don't know.  We only know God felt it was necessary" or something like that.  There doesnt' seem to be much thought that the ban itself should be examined and questioned, nor does it feel like there's room among most member's thoughts when it is suggested the ban was not inspired. 

All this tells me is that most Mormons know nothing of theology or history.  But, since the LDS faith is primarily praxis, there is no need for them to know anything in those fields.

Take humanism, for example, few Mormons have any idea what that means, and certainly could not care less.  It doesn't put food on the table and doesn't get one through the recommend interview.  Being blissfully unaware of something does not, however, make it go away.  Thus, it is plainly false to declare that "To be a humanist religion the statement or claim would have to be evident to those who live Mormonism."  That is like saying to Galileo that heliocentrism is not true because Roman Catholics do not believe it.  An obvious non sequitur.

[TheSkepticChristian]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  That is because there is an automatic association of humanism in the minds of many with atheism.  Even for TheSkepticChristian, who is Transhumanist, there is a lack of understanding that Mormonism is humanist.

I am Mormon Transhumanist. I was only saying that Mormonism is not a universalist religion, I am most likely not going to be save in the Celestial Kingdom, I am probably going get the Telestial glory. LDS doctrine also teaches that some are going to go to outer darkness, I don't see how Mormonism is a universalist religion. 

As for Humanism it means "An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/humanism

When our church gets involve in politics to prevent the legalization of gay marriage, please don't tell me they have rational reasons. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is justified by the usual atheistic bent of humanism today, but if you look at its principles, it is all about human beings living to their fullest potential and so is the gospel.

To a truly intellectually honest humanist, there is as like that God exists as that he does not

At the core of humanism is the belief also that mankind has constructed the world as we know it- known as "social constructivism".  THAT is the core of the atheistic tendency of humanism.  If mankind has created reality as we know it - through science and linguistic characterizations- then there is no need to postulate the existence of God

Think about that- it is saying that all we know is... what we CAN know as human beings. Our perceptions and everything we know comes "through" our human minds

But where did we get our human minds?

Maybe we will get into this but that is a long story, imo.  But then we have the notion that HUMANS ORGANIZE what we call "matter unorganized"

Sound familiar?

Add then to humanism the idea of a Father in Heaven who also "organizes matter unorganized" as we do, and we have a God who is some sense is the same kind of being as we are, but much more intelligent- infinitely more intelligent than we are.

James thought of God as a "master chess player" - a being LIKE us but infinitely intelligent 

Think of how a master chess player who is infinitely intelligent would organize the world.  If you are a chess beginner, any chess master would know every possible move to turn the tide in his favor no matter what move you made!  Though he was not omniscient but a human like you, he would STILL know enough about chess to turn everything you did to his purposes.

Now apply that to God

A human God could do just that- and adjust everything that happens in his world to suit his circumstances, even though he was not omniscient or all powerful, or transcendent, or any of those false characteristics the sectarians ascribe to Him.  If Adam took the fruit, he could adjust.  If he didn't- there is ALWAYS a plan B and C and.... to infinity.

But without omniscience, allowing agency to his children to do whatever they could possibly do- he could always "make a move" to change circumstances in his favor to take care of his children.

THAT is a humanist God, for those who have stirrings in their hearts that such a God could exist.   Looking out at the universe, it is hard to imagine that someone like that does not exist

But this is only a story, only an explanation for someone who needs to answer questions.   God dwells in our hearts and is unknowable except through testimony experiences, but the logical explanations help.  That is one possible way of seeing Him, according to James.

 

Yes, I suspect they're reacting to the lack of explicit theism rather than to the actual principles of humanism. 

The human-like model of God doesn't work for me, but I'm all for people using whatever model they find most helpful. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am Mormon Transhumanist. I was only saying that Mormonism is not a universalist religion, I am most likely not going to be save in the Celestial Kingdom, I am probably going get the Telestial glory. LDS doctrine also teaches that some are going to go to outer darkness, I don't see how Mormonism is a universalist religion. 

Whether some humans must join Satan and his horde in Outer Darkness is not fully settled, since so few humans seem capable of that sort of knowing-evil.  The Telestial Glory is just that, a glory, as for the other glories.  All will likely be resurrected and glorified.  If after this life you choose to fully accept the atonement, you may find yourself in the Celestial Kingdom.  Surprise, surprise.

As for Humanism it means "An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/humanism

....................................................................................... 

Humanism is not just a modern association of atheists or a political position.  It is also a philosophical position which entails complete rejection of supernaturalism, a belief in only natural law throughout the universe (or multiverse), etc.  Since the LDS religion rejects supernaturalism, fully accepts natural law, and claims belief in a God(s) who was once a man, it is clearly humanist.

 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Nevo said:

I believe these are the current questions: 

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

The first three questions are clearly belief questions. The fourth question is a combination of belief and "praxis"—you need to believe that Thomas S. Monson is "the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and . . . the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys."

It doesn't matter if you're faithful to your spouse, pay a full tithe, don't beat your kids, don't affiliate or sympathize with polygamists, attend all your meetings, and otherwise keep your covenants. If you don't have a testimony of the reality of each member of the Godhead, of the Atonement, of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and angelic priesthood restoration, you can't get a recommend. Your good behavior isn't enough.

Interestingly for me at least in the past two TRs I had with my bishop and SP I was honest that I struggled with 1-3 but had hope in all three but serious doubts as well. For 4 I said I sustain them fully within their realm of the LDS Church but I did not think that it extended beyond that and that I believed for example the Pope has as much right to revelation and priesthood power (if such things exist) in his realm as the LDS leaders do in their.

For all the rest on practice and behavior I was able to give the correct answer.  I got my recommend both times.  This led me to believe that at least for these two LDS local leaders practice was more important than belief.

Now recently I have a new bishop and a new stake presidency.   Not sure how they would view such answers.

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All this tells me is that most Mormons know nothing of theology or history.  But, since the LDS faith is primarily praxis, there is no need for them to know anything in those fields.

Take humanism, for example, few Mormons have any idea what that means, and certainly could not care less.  It doesn't put food on the table and doesn't get one through the recommend interview.  Being blissfully unaware of something does not, however, make it go away.  Thus, it is plainly false to declare that "To be a humanist religion the statement or claim would have to be evident to those who live Mormonism."  That is like saying to Galileo that heliocentrism is not true because Roman Catholics do not believe it.  An obvious non sequitur.

I hear ya in a sense, but what a particular religion is (Like Mormonism) is the practice of the adherence.  In practice, it seems, most LDS favor dogma over critical thinking and evidence.  This isnt' about what is true in my view, as I agree with you that Mormonism is best when practiced in a humanist method rather than in the way it most commonly is practiced. 

[ksfisher]

43 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

When our church gets involve in politics to prevent the legalization of gay marriage, please don't tell me they have rational reasons. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

you may find yourself in the Celestial Kingdom. Surprise, surprise.

I doubt it, I think I will end up in the Telestial glory. The Telestial glory is not salvation to most LDS, that is not the goal of the church. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Humanism is not just a modern association of atheists or a political position. It is also a philosophical position which entails complete rejection of supernaturalism, a belief in only natural law throughout the universe (or multiverse), etc. Since the LDS religion rejects supernaturalism, fully accepts natural law, and claims belief in a God(s) who was once a man, it is clearly humanist.

Please read the definition of Agnosticism again. 

"An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/humanism

I am not saying humanism has to be atheistic, again I am a Mormon Transhumanist, but agnostic.  However, I don't think our LDS church is humanist because church members don't "seek solely rational ways" to solve human problems. Most devout members don't question anything that prophets say.  I also wonder, how can we tell the difference between the Holy Ghost and Patternicity? and the Improbability Principle? 

By definition God is divine and supernatural, Supernatural means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/supernatural

Supernatural doesn't have to be magic.  

 

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am Mormon Transhumanist. I was only saying that Mormonism is not a universalist religion, I am most likely not going to be save in the Celestial Kingdom, I am probably going get the Telestial glory.

A very odd statement.

You doubt the existence of God and continually disagree with the church's teachings.  Ok, no problem.

Yet you are confident you are going to the telestial kingdom.

Very strange. You think you are going to a place which you think doesn't exist.

What you believe is what you get.  Evangelicals want to go to heaven and hang out playing harps all day, and for them, that is about what they will get, from our point of view.

Good for them.   But this?? 

I wrote this privately in notes I expect to be published one day, I will include this here, though I know it is an imperfect venue.  I throw it out there in the hopes that someone may pick up on it.  I want to include it in this thread because this is what the thread is about- a spiritual interpretation of humanism, and Nietzsche in his odd way was a spiritual humanist.

It seems only few understand that the kingdom of God is within us and we are our own judges.  The saying is that we will stand before the judgement bar of God and evaluate our own lives in the searingly clear light illuminating out lives as seen from God's perspective, or at least that is my understanding.  We will instantly know in that infusion of intelligence what is the exactly right glory we deserve for all our sins and good deeds, no lying, no cheating, no bargaining possible, and we will be happy with that because we know perfectly it is what we deserve.  Mercy and justice will be perfectly balanced, and we will see ourselves as we are and affirm our joy at simply being us.

If this were not so, "heaven" would become "hell" because we would always be dissatisfied and regret our lifetime decisions.  

This ties in with Neitzsche's idea of "eternal recurrence", at that moment we will be able to shout "insatiably da capo" in full affirmation of our lives as we lived them knowing we belong where we belong and that we have filled the measure of our creation, whatever that is, and have "joy therein'

So you are living so as to receive a telestial glory and yet you do not believe in such a thing because it is unscientific.

VERY odd and incoherent and conflicted in my opinion

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Very strange. You think you are going to a place which you think doesn't exist.

I never said that Telestial kingdom doesn't exists,what I think is: I don't know. 

If the Telestial glory is real, I will likely get it.      

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I hear ya in a sense, but what a particular religion is (Like Mormonism) is the practice of the adherence.  In practice, it seems, most LDS favor dogma over critical thinking and evidence.  This isnt' about what is true in my view, as I agree with you that Mormonism is best when practiced in a humanist method rather than in the way it most commonly is practiced. 

The LDS faith is likely to be most strongly held by the better educated members.  The less well educated, the more likely LDS members are to lose the faith.  This goes against the expected result in most other religions, precisely because LDS faith is better supported by critical thinking and evidence.  This is a legacy of its strongly humanistic qualities, including natural law, an anthropomorphic God(s), and its emphasis on praxis.  Indeed, Mormonism is a way of life more than a religion, a shared ethnicity more than abstract dogma.  Conversions to Mormonism are nearly always based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than on some historical or theological considerations.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I doubt it, I think I will end up in the Telestial glory. The Telestial glory is not salvation to most LDS, that is not the goal of the church. 

You are engaging in special pleading, which is a fallacy, Skeptic.  You either accept the LDS structure of the afterlife, or you do not.  Moreover, the meaning of "salvation" within Mormonism is not equivalent to "exaltation."  That is a fundamental error on your part.  The Plan of Salvation is that man's sin guarantees his ultimate spiritual death, but that the atonement purges that sin and guarantees bodily resurrection to eternal life.

Please read the definition of Agnosticism again. 

"An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/humanism

I am not saying humanism has to be atheistic, again I am a Mormon Transhumanist, but agnostic.  However, I don't think our LDS church is humanist because church members don't "seek solely rational ways" to solve human problems. Most devout members don't question anything that prophets say.  I also wonder, how can we tell the difference between the Holy Ghost and Patternicity? and the Improbability Principle? 

By definition God is divine and supernatural, Supernatural means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/supernatural

Supernatural doesn't have to be magic.  

The Neo-Platonic god of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief is indeed supernatural and outside of time and space, the First Uncaused Cause.  Your basic confusion is to attribute that belief to Mormonism, which is a fundamental theological error, from which all your other misunderstandings proceed.  Since you also do not understand what humanism is, that is likewise the source of error in your personal theology.  I have no problem with you being transhumanist and agnostic, except that you do not appear to understand what that means.

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS faith is likely to be most strongly held by the better educated members.  The less well educated, the more likely LDS members are to lose the faith.  This goes against the expected result in most other religions, precisely because LDS faith is better supported by critical thinking and evidence.  This is a legacy of its strongly humanistic qualities, including natural law, an anthropomorphic God(s), and its emphasis on praxis.  Indeed, Mormonism is a way of life more than a religion, a shared ethnicity more than abstract dogma.  Conversions to Mormonism are nearly always based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than on some historical or theological considerations.

I used to think this as well.  I am not sure I agree anymore that the LDS faith is strongest among its better educated members. I see a number of the better educated that maintaining some sort of faith the the LDS truth claims but in very nuanced ways.   But this is just observation and anecdotal.  I could be wrong.   Do per chance have anything to support your position above?

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Moreover, the meaning of "salvation" within Mormonism is not equivalent to "exaltation."

It's just all interpretation. To some it is the same thing, but not to others. To some salvation is salvation from sin. 

"In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings 

https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng

but for the sake of argument let's say that Salvation is getting one degree of glory. What about Cain? LDS church teaches that Cain will end up in outer darkness, that is not universalism.  

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem with you being transhumanist and agnostic, except that you do not appear to understand what that means.

You are right, I don't understand your interpretation of humanism. According to mfbukowski everything is just interpretation. 

Let me be clear, I am still a Mormon. 

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

VERY odd and incoherent and conflicted in my opinion

Everything is just opinion and interpretation right? 

 

 

[salgare]

I now assume Bushman agrees with you

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I used to think this as well.  I am not sure I agree anymore that the LDS faith is strongest among its better educated members. I see a number of the better educated that maintaining some sort of faith the the LDS truth claims but in very nuanced ways.   But this is just observation and anecdotal.  I could be wrong.   Do per chance have anything to support your position above?

Yes, this has been the result of repeated secular research reports for years now:

Joseph Walker, “LDS religious commitment high, Pew survey finds,” Deseret News, Jan 13, 2012, online at  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html?pg=all ,

Quote

One such finding is the relationship between religious commitment and education among Mormons.

David Campbell, a University of Notre Dame associate professor and another adviser on the survey, noted that the more educated respondents were, the higher their levels of religious commitment.

"I was a little surprised by that," said Campbell, who is LDS and who has extensively studied on the role of religion in the public square. "The more educated a Mormon is, the more likely they are to be wholehearted in their commitment to the church and its teachings."

That is different from other churches, he said, where more education tends to lead to more religious skepticism.

So too Katherine Orgill, “Mormons more faithful with more education,” BYU Daily Universe, May 5, 2015, online at http://universe.byu.edu/2015/05/05/final-story-21/ .

https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/4bnont/as_mormons_become_more_educated_they_become_more/ .

Edited July 21, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[salgare]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This goes against the expected result in most other religions, precisely because LDS faith is better supported by critical thinking and evidence.

I guess this is one of those times that we really are not like other Christains

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It's just all interpretation. To some it is the same thing, but not to others. To some salvation is salvation from sin. 

"In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings 

https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng

but for the sake of argument let's say that Salvation is getting one degree of glory. What about Cain? LDS church teaches that Cain will end up in outer darkness, that is not universalism.  

.....................................................  

Even if Cain is cast into Outer Darkness permanently, that would be the exception which proves the rule that nearly all are glorified in the three kingdoms.  Boyd K, Packer, 'The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness," Ensign, Nov 1995, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng .  The notion of universalism does not require 100% effectiveness.  That is the fallacy of the call to perfection.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

You are right, I don't understand your interpretation of humanism. According to mfbukowski everything is just interpretation. 

Let me be clear, I am still a Mormon. 

Everything is just opinion and interpretation right? 

AS usual, you still don't get it- to you everything is a slogan.  Some ideas take more than three monosyllable words to explain.  

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Humanism is not just a modern association of atheists or a political position.  It is also a philosophical position which entails complete rejection of supernaturalism, a belief in only natural law throughout the universe (or multiverse), etc.  Since the LDS religion rejects supernaturalism, fully accepts natural law, and claims belief in a God(s) who was once a man, it is clearly humanist.

Not to mention that Mormons are also materialists.  Even spirit itself is material.  So we are humanist, materialist theists AND universalists!  AND if we really want to go crazy, we could also say that with our belief in "opposition in all things" we are ALSO "dialectical materialist theistic universalists and humanists"

Quote

One of the divinely ordained purposes of life is to gain spiritual and intellectual experience in mind and spirit (see Reason and Revelation). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest" (HC 6:248). To "study it out in your mind" is often a prerequisite to heavenly assistance (D&C 9:8), and communication from God may sometimes be recognized by its effect on the mind. Latter-day Saints were enjoined early to seek knowledge out of the best books (D&C 88:118) and to establish schools (seeSchools of the Prophets) for instruction in both sacred and secular matters.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intellectual_History

"Proving contraries" is precisely what the dialectical method is.  Hegel put forth this idea first and then Marx picked it up and applied it to history, with debatable results!

The reality is that our views are so close to secularism that the only difference is that we believe William James that feelings in our hearts are legitimate "empirical" observations, though they are subjective and not objective.   We have made the step to a "new science" that phenomenology and the Pragmatists have striven for, for years.  Read John Dewey's "Reconstruction in Philosophy" which does for philosophy what Joseph did for the Restoration- the parallels are phenomenal.  We will have to discuss Dewey some time.  Dewey is really the link between James and Rorty.

Re materialism :  D&C 131:7

Quote

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention that Mormons are also materialists.  Even spirit itself is material.  So we are humanist, materialist theists AND universalists!  AND if we really want to go crazy, we could also say that with our belief in "opposition in all things" we are ALSO "dialectical materialist theistic universalists and humanists"

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intellectual_History

"Proving contraries" is precisely what the dialectical method is.  Hegel put forth this idea first and then Marx picked it up and applied it to history, with debatable results!

The reality is that our views are so close to secularism that the only difference is that we believe William James that feelings in our hearts are legitimate "empirical" observations, though they are subjective and not objective.   We have made the step to a "new science" that phenomenology and the Pragmatists have striven for, for years.  Read John Dewey's "Reconstruction in Philosophy" which does for philosophy what Joseph did for the Restoration- the parallels are phenomenal.  We will have to discuss Dewey some time.  Dewey is really the link between James and Rorty.

Re materialism :  D&C 131:7

 

Finally  ...  Somebody actually speaks English, saying things that are both true and matter extraordinarily 

[Gray]

I would agree with Robert and MFBukowski - Mormonism is naturalistic and materialistic. That's the inevitable conclusion when you really think about the theology and the doctrines that Joseph Smith laid out. Mormons believe in things that most people would categorize as supernatural (Gods, angels, devils, miracles), but it defines those things in purely naturalistic/materialistic terms. God is essentially an alien from another planet, not a supernatural first cause agent.

However, once again on LDS.org you find only criticism of naturalism and acceptance of the supernatural (both terms are used rarely, however). Perhaps that's a side effect of having clergy who are businessmen, doctors and lawyers rather than academics, philosophers or theologians. Is this a problem? We do seem open to influence from other Christian thinkers (CS Lewis especially). Will Mormon humanism/naturalism eventually fade away, replaced by something more mundane and mainstream? 

I see Mormons adopting mainstream Christian positions all the time - first cause arguments for God cribbed from William Lane Craig, or criticisms of naturalism as a devilish or atheistic position. None of these arguments make sense if you believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith on these matters. But will his teachings cease to influence the doctrine at some point? Will Mormonism fully embrace the supernatural, and a fully transcendent God who is the ultimate author of all existence? 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

I would agree with Robert and MFBukowski - Mormonism is naturalistic and materialistic. That's the inevitable conclusion when you really think about the theology and the doctrines that Joseph Smith laid out. Mormons believe in things that most people would categorize as supernatural (Gods, angels, devils, miracles), but it defines those things in purely naturalistic/materialistic terms. God is essentially an alien from another planet, not a supernatural first cause agent.

However, once again on LDS.org you find only criticism of naturalism and acceptance of the supernatural (both terms are used rarely, however). Perhaps that's a side effect of having clergy who are businessmen, doctors and lawyers rather than academics, philosophers or theologians. Is this a problem? We do seem open to influence from other Christian thinkers (CS Lewis especially). Will Mormon humanism/naturalism eventually fade away, replaced by something more mundane and mainstream? 

I see Mormons adopting mainstream Christian positions all the time - first cause arguments for God cribbed from William Lane Craig, or criticisms of naturalism as a devilish or atheistic position. None of these arguments make sense if you believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith on these matters. But will his teachings cease to influence the doctrine at some point? Will Mormonism fully embrace the supernatural, and a fully transcendent God who is the ultimate author of all existence? 

I tend to agree that that is pretty exactly the problem

Mormons don't know what they have and have nearly thrown it all away already.  But I think the tide is turning.

Frankly I think someone will pick up the ball and take Mormonism as it was intended to be forward to the world.  I think we are headed in that direction in recent years and find this direction very exciting.

But a secularized version might replace it if we are not careful, seeing Christ as the "Ideal Man", a personage and ideal to be emulated, with a pragmatic view of ethics and "Christ Consciousness" delivered by "intuition" and meditation.  Those can be seen as secular terms for inspiration and the voice of the spirit.  The idea of the family of man kind can be seen as a secular ideal as well, and the notion that we are all Children of Man (we might say children of the man of Holiness).  If we are not careful the Father Son and Holy Ghost could be replaced by the worship of family values themselves as an evolutionary necessary step for the survival of mankind, 

Without children being raised in some kind of loving family relationship, we are done for.  The worship of the family as a principle is essential to the survival of mankind- it is part of evolution itself.

The atonement can be seen secularly as a myth for a mechanism to remove our guilt through "repentance" seen as an attempt to reverse the effects of bad things we have done to the best of our abilities.  We are redeemed from guilt by the attempt to reverse any evil we have done to the best of our abilities, "after all we can do".

And there could be a belief that instead of marrying "til death do you part" the very act of covenanting to be together after death confirms a strong enough desire to do so, thereby binding our spirits together even in the afterlife, for those who believe in such things.  It is we ourselves who create this kind of relationship by the strength of our faith and desire to have it.  It is the new age principle of affirmation, that if we believe anything strongly enough, we will bring it into existence.

So this is what could replace Mormonism in a tragedy of apostasy from the truths our Heavenly Father has given us.

We are walking a tightrope right now between these two futures I think.  My prayer is that the church as we know it continues on its path and saves itself.  For the record, I heartily endorse the church in every direction it appears to be taking!

Edited July 21, 2016 by mfbukowski