Is there a God? Is there a Jesus?

[silverfox]

I am always amazed at how often when I speak with ex members how their beliefs in a God or Christ wane when they discover the church is not true.

I didn't grow up LDS but I grew up in a religious home. I always strongly felt there was a Christ, a God. I KNEW there was. So I was shocked to find that I know question the existence of any kind of God or Christ. I wasn't prepared for that. I think this has left the biggest void. However, I feel stronger than ever on a personal spiritual level. Because I am not depending on a God or a Christ to make decisions for me. I am becoming more and more responsible for my own decisions and reactions.

As a Christian I think I took the power of a God and Christ for granted. It was easy to stow away feelings and emotions of hurt, anger, worry, etc. Now I find I am much more proactive in dealing with and resolving issues. I am not saving them up for God to deal with in the great hereafter. I also have found that I don't blame him for the ugliness in the world and I don't blow it off as "it's God's will". I feel more responsible for the course my life is taking and for how my actions and decisions impact others.

Sigh.I hope this makes sense. blab blab blab

[b_hedshiz]

I am always amazed at how often when I speak with ex members how their beliefs in a God or Christ wane when they discover the church is not true.

I think that we are trained as Latter-Day Saints to think that either the church is true or no church is. So when we lose our faith in Mormonsim, it is hard to find another faith. We have learned why all the other belief systems must be wrong, so we will have to overcome that teaching to really participate in an organized religion after leaving the Mormon faith.

I also think that people who leave Momronism are skeptical and wary of anyone who comes along preaching religion and "truth." They have been stung once, and don't want a repeat.

Like you, I also feel a void at times, but I also feel free and "empowered," if you will forgive that term, to make my own decisions.

[nikki]

I am always amazed at how often when I speak with ex members how their beliefs in a God or Christ wane when they discover the church is not true.

I didn't grow up LDS but I grew up in a religious home. I always strongly felt there was a Christ, a God. I KNEW there was. So I was shocked to find that I know question the existence of any kind of God or Christ. I wasn't prepared for that. I think this has left the biggest void. However, I feel stronger than ever on a personal spiritual level. Because I am not depending on a God or a Christ to make decisions for me. I am becoming more and more responsible for my own decisions and reactions.

As a Christian I think I took the power of a God and Christ for granted. It was easy to stow away feelings and emotions of hurt, anger, worry, etc. Now I find I am much more proactive in dealing with and resolving issues. I am not saving them up for God to deal with in the great hereafter. I also have found that I don't blame him for the ugliness in the world and I don't blow it off as "it's God's will". I feel more responsible for the course my life is taking and for how my actions and decisions impact others.

Sigh.I hope this makes sense. blab blab blab


Mankind ususally creates most of the uglyness in the world, not God. Natural events will happen, again all not God, part of the way the world is made. I am not sure why, but I never blamed God for the uglyness of the world.

For me I did not lose faith in everything, when I walked away from Mormonism. I was raised in a 1/2 and 1/2 family anyhow, and got the full slam dunk experience after I married!

Maybe my view of Christ may differ from others. I always saw Christ as a reformer, trying to turn the "tide" of strict laws, which man were making cumbersome, harsh, and inhumane. (Gee, I wish you would get spell check!)

The bible is a history of a people,it's belief systems, laws and customs. Gives a good many stories to behaviors and outcomes to the behaviors. People never really change, so the outcomes can give some good hindsite and insite.

Has man used the Bible through out time for people to comply to THEIR political use, control peoples thoughts, land and property ? Yes. But still there are some things to learn in it, and even with the the dust of history on it's pages, biblical places can be found.

I know some once they left Mormonism, also left any form of 'faith'. I stayed having a belief system in 'greater powers' lets say. Maybe some had a hard time because in the LDS church it is a all or nothing matter.

And no, my faith is not in Mormonism, I think the Mormon faith is very damaging. I have a friend who is Catholic and said her church is just about empty.

Christ taught spiritual faith, non conformity, and greater humane behavior. Hay, he a stopped stoneing!

Over time I think there will be some modification of views of Christ, as well as some confused thoughts, as more documents and research appear. But in the end the reform which he tried to make should be realized.

I had no problems with Christmas, even though it was not the time Christ was born. ( that one can find even in Christian teaching it one looks) And taking a moment to reflect: Thanks for coming and knowing Christ, that man was becoming too strict and too unkind, and after all that is one of the strongest teaching of the first 2 commandments.

We have a horrible war. The tidal waves taught us the earth is more powerful. Maybe time for mankind to learn that.

Nikki

[dev_team]

Whether or not Jesus existed isn’t all that important so I simply let such a belief go and move on with my life. Why do I think it isn’t it important? I’ll admit that it IS important in negative terms if having such a belief causes socially unhealthy behaviors, which in my experience is far too often the case when taken as a whole. I don’t suspect that’s the case with you Nicki. But in general I find that faith, in all its forms, pushes group social behavior toward various socially unhealthy and often abusive behaviors. In short, faith has proven to come with a steep price for any culture.

This brings us to another question, and that is whether we need a Jesus or a faith to have what the Bible says he taught? My answer is no, we don’t. We can have the benefit without the steep price so I let it go. For example, Jesus didn’t invent “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s common sense that’s been around since the dawn of civilization. Let me reword it in my terms: Treat others with the same respect, understanding and compassion that you would like others to give you. Why do we need anymore religion, gospel or faith than that? I for the life of me can’t see any reason why.

So if believing in a Jesus has proven time and again to tend to cause the unhealthy group social behaviors that are often the case, and if we can live the fundamental principle of the teachings attributed to Jesus without a Jesus or any faith, then my conclusion is why do I need any of it? I can have the benefit without the price.

I’m perfectly willing to allow others to align themselves with a faith but I will call them or their culture on that faith whenever it manipulates them into crossing the line into behaviors that, when it comes right down to it, ignore the very basis of Jesus' gospel that they claim they espouse -- namely, "treat others with the same respect, understanding and compassion that you would like others to give you" and I might add, and do it regardless of creed, age, race, sexual orientation, or whatever the Bible might say otherwise. The End.

That’s my two bits worth. :)

Jeff

P.S. About the spell checker Nicki. I’ll look into that and see if one is available for the forum software we’re using. Thanks for the recommendation!

[dev_team]

I'm logged in as dev_team today to facilitate some website development I'm working on.

By the way, we'll be announcing a brand new part of the website on January 2nd that I think you're going to love! :D

Jeff

[nikki]

Whether or not Jesus existed isn’t all that important so I simply let such a belief go and move on with my life. Why do I think it isn’t it important? I’ll admit that it IS important in negative terms if having such a belief causes socially unhealthy behaviors, which in my experience is far too often the case when taken as a whole. I don’t suspect that’s the case with you Nicki. But in general I find that faith, in all its forms, pushes group social behavior toward various socially unhealthy and often abusive behaviors. In short, faith has proven to come with a steep price for any culture.

This brings us to another question, and that is whether we need a Jesus or a faith to have what the Bible says he taught? My answer is no, we don’t. We can have the benefit without the steep price so I let it go. For example, Jesus didn’t invent “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s common sense that’s been around since the dawn of civilization. Let me reword it in my terms: Treat others with the same respect, understanding and compassion that you would like others to give you. Why do we need anymore religion, gospel or faith than that? I for the life of me can’t see any reason why.

So if believing in a Jesus has proven time and again to tend to cause the unhealthy group social behaviors that are often the case, and if we can live the fundamental principle of the teachings attributed to Jesus without a Jesus or any faith, then my conclusion is why do I need any of it? I can have the benefit without the price.

I’m perfectly willing to allow others to align themselves with a faith but I will call them or their culture on that faith whenever it manipulates them into crossing the line into behaviors that, when it comes right down to it, ignore the very basis of Jesus' gospel that they claim they espouse -- namely, "treat others with the same respect, understanding and compassion that you would like others to give you" and I might add, and do it regardless of creed, age, race, sexual orientation, or whatever the Bible might say otherwise. The End.

That’s my two bits worth. :)

Jeff

P.S. About the spell checker Nicki. I’ll look into that and see if one is available for the forum software we’re using. Thanks for the recommendation!


Thank you for not including me in the group of extremist!!! ;) Remember I said I more than likely look at it differenly than most. Yes, religious people have done some horrible things, and non- religious people have done some horrible things. No corner on the market there. Non- religious people have done some noble and great things as well a religious. People can take things to an extreme.

If it helps,even in the Christian faith I can present a challenge to a teacher!! (LOL,LoL) There are all kinds of Christian faiths,and I am a non-dominational one. I am not pushing faith on anyone.

I understand what you are saying.

I am trying to put my life together in the face of some strong opposition. I have tiger by the tail here.There are times curl up and just shake, if you want to know the truth. But end the end, I will be back up and doing my very best to fight these horrible people here.

Thank you for your two bits. Thanks for looking into spell check. I use to spell and write much better......but it seems to have been altered a bit with the S T R E S S.

nikki

[glad2bfree]

[QUOTE=silverfox]I am always amazed at how often when I speak with ex members how their beliefs in a God or Christ wane when they discover the church is not true.
***
I did grow up LDS, and was a member for over 60 years, albeit inactive for the last 20. I had my name removed over four years ago.
I suspect many ex members have the same experience I had, and that is, after examining the evidence and determining LDS doctrine is fatally flawed, I analytically examined the basis of all Christian religions, ie, the Bible. What I found through extensive study, considering both sides of the issue, is that the Bible itlelf is fatally flawed. The main flaws I found are all the messages of hatred with the purpose of engendering fear. It is the obvious man-made, fictitious hatred that renders the Bible not only invalid, but dangerous. The hatred is in addition to the obvious inconsistencies, contradictions and outright absurdities. After studying the Bible with an open mind, I do not understand why I ever believed any of it. I had to be existing in a mentally-altered state. (Perhaps Utah?)
Having said all that, I do not consider myself an athiest. I believe in the afterlife, but I don't believe in Zeus, Jehovah, Yaweh or any of the man-made gods. I do believe in the basic message of Jesus, and that is unconditional love. Unfortunately that message is all but lost in the barrage of hatred put into the mouth of Jesus by New Tesatment authors attempting to convince instead of accurately recording actual events.

[peter_mary]

I suspect many ex members have the same experience I had, and that is, after examining the evidence and determining LDS doctrine is fatally flawed, I analytically examined the basis of all Christian religions, ie, the Bible. What I found through extensive study, considering both sides of the issue, is that the Bible itlelf is fatally flawed.

Bingo! That was my experience, too. It was actually while I was studying the evolution of the concept of God (strange thing for a Mormon to be doing) that I began to consider the possibility that religions were nothing more than a paradigm. It was easy at that point to begin the process of disassembling Mormon theology and history and indentify the constituents of the paradigm. It was still a surprise, however, when the same analytical tools learned in de-bunking the Mormon myth were equally effective at de-bunking the Christian myth. We call it the "collapse of the twin towers" at our house, since the event happened to coincide quite closely with 9/11 and the analogy seemed appropriate. It's not that I rejected God or Jesus...it was more that my evolving world view no longer required them to answer the "unanswerable," and they just disappeared. I began to see them as unecessary as answers to world problems, and the mysteries they once seemed to resolve lack the mystique they held thousands of years ago when we first encountered things like our mortality, the need for an objective moral code, and the desire to always exist.

For me, I tend to agree with Jeff. Religion does a lot more to seperate us as people than it does to bring us together, and the growing chasm between the forces of Islam and the forces of Christianity (because let's face it...that's what this war is FAST becoming) is just emblematic of the crisis we face as a direct result of the failure of monotheistic belief.

I have faith in relationships, and I have faith the universe is what it is, and beyond that, I figure I best be about the business of leading a good life, loving my family, making good friends...because when it's over, it's over. Strangely, I'm at peace with that, unlike my Mormon days when I lived in perpetual fear of the possibility of dieing without having been sufficiently valiant in this life, and consigning myself to an eternity of Terrestial living.

Paul

[nikki]

Bingo! That was my experience, too. It was actually while I was studying the evolution of the concept of God (strange thing for a Mormon to be doing) that I began to consider the possibility that religions were nothing more than a paradigm. It was easy at that point to begin the process of disassembling Mormon theology and history and indentify the constituents of the paradigm. It was still a surprise, however, when the same analytical tools learned in de-bunking the Mormon myth were equally effective at de-bunking the Christian myth. We call it the "collapse of the twin towers" at our house, since the event happened to coincide quite closely with 9/11 and the analogy seemed appropriate. It's not that I rejected God or Jesus...it was more that my evolving world view no longer required them to answer the "unanswerable," and they just disappeared. I began to see them as unecessary as answers to world problems, and the mysteries they once seemed to resolve lack the mystique they held thousands of years ago when we first encountered things like our mortality, the need for an objective moral code, and the desire to always exist.

For me, I tend to agree with Jeff. Religion does a lot more to seperate us as people than it does to bring us together, and the growing chasm between the forces of Islam and the forces of Christianity (because let's face it...that's what this war is FAST becoming) is just emblematic of the crisis we face as a direct result of the failure of monotheistic belief.

I have faith in relationships, and I have faith the universe is what it is, and beyond that, I figure I best be about the business of leading a good life, loving my family, making good friends...because when it's over, it's over. Strangely, I'm at peace with that, unlike my Mormon days when I lived in perpetual fear of the possibility of dieing without having been sufficiently valiant in this life, and consigning myself to an eternity of Terrestial living.

Paul


I understand your feeling all. Mankind has had a long history of hate, and yes, that it reflected in the Bible. Preachers, translators, leaders, all have misused the scriptures.

Where as Book of Mormon sites cannot be found, this is not true of Bible sites. Somewhere within in it's dusty pages, the history of the area and it's people can be found.

The "Red Sea" mistranslated for the "Sea of Reeds" and other areas. In time there may be more light shed.

People of control and people who are off balance, will thump there Bibles and teach people hate. For me I walk away from them, and do not listen. I guess, I have not read where Christ "taught" hate. Some after him did and before him did.

I have had friends who were from Arab Nations, and friends from Asian nations. I traveled to one of the Asian nations, and had a wonderful stay. I hope I will always know there are good and bad people in any nation, or belief, or non belief.

For me I am no Bible thumper. It is much more low key than that.

[nikki]

Bingo! That was my experience, too. It was actually while I was studying the evolution of the concept of God (strange thing for a Mormon to be doing) that I began to consider the possibility that religions were nothing more than a paradigm. It was easy at that point to begin the process of disassembling Mormon theology and history and indentify the constituents of the paradigm. It was still a surprise, however, when the same analytical tools learned in de-bunking the Mormon myth were equally effective at de-bunking the Christian myth. We call it the "collapse of the twin towers" at our house, since the event happened to coincide quite closely with 9/11 and the analogy seemed appropriate. It's not that I rejected God or Jesus...it was more that my evolving world view no longer required them to answer the "unanswerable," and they just disappeared. I began to see them as unecessary as answers to world problems, and the mysteries they once seemed to resolve lack the mystique they held thousands of years ago when we first encountered things like our mortality, the need for an objective moral code, and the desire to always exist.

For me, I tend to agree with Jeff. Religion does a lot more to seperate us as people than it does to bring us together, and the growing chasm between the forces of Islam and the forces of Christianity (because let's face it...that's what this war is FAST becoming) is just emblematic of the crisis we face as a direct result of the failure of monotheistic belief.

I have faith in relationships, and I have faith the universe is what it is, and beyond that, I figure I best be about the business of leading a good life, loving my family, making good friends...because when it's over, it's over. Strangely, I'm at peace with that, unlike my Mormon days when I lived in perpetual fear of the possibility of dieing without having been sufficiently valiant in this life, and consigning myself to an eternity of Terrestial living.

Paul

I never worried about what kingdom I would make in the next life, and I do not worry about the next life now. I am just concerned about this life. It is what was given to live, when the next comes, then I will be conserned about living there.

Nikki

[silverfox]

Thanks for the interesting feedback.

I saw a show on Discovery Channel last year around Xmas time. Additional writings by some of the apostles were found discussing the relationship between Jesus and Mary. I often wonder why these recordings are not "added" to the Bible if they are indeed proven to be part of that history. It was very interesting stuff. Is it because no one wants to mess with the "tradition" of the Bible? What ramifications are people afraid of? Who would even have the "right" to decide to add them? Why aren't these writings compiled and published as an addition? (thinking outloud,not really asking) The Bible has been used "forever" to generate laws, obedience, compliance not just in religions but in governments as well. The power of the Bible is so very intriguing to me. I agree that man's interpretations of the Bible has been and is used to create hate, separation, etc. Anyone can interpret scripture to suit their needs/desires/emotions. I also feel, though, that even if Christ didn't exist or if he did exist and he was just like anyone else (my feeling) his example offers a great guideline as to how to treat others and yourself. It is man's interpretations that cause issues of hate.

Jeff, love this board, love the articles, etc. Thanks for your dedication to creating a place for us PostMos to go. :)

[dev_team]

Bingo! That was my experience, too. It was actually while I was studying the evolution of the concept of God (strange thing for a Mormon to be doing) that I began to consider the possibility that religions were nothing more than a paradigm. It was easy at that point to begin the process of disassembling Mormon theology and history and indentify the constituents of the paradigm.
Paul

Paul,

You touched on a subject that to me is fascinating – paradigms -- what they are, how they evolve and propagate within cultures, how they evolve particular characteristics that help them survive, and even how they evolve various defense strategies. In short, paradigms evolve much like living organisms evolve.

Relative to paradigms I see things like this:

Why does Mormonism exist? Because it has won the battle of survival of the fittest (so far, anyway). Why does it continually change and remake itself? Because it’s trying to survive in a battle against other competing paradigms. It needs to mutate, to try out new defense and survival features. Paradigms also have sub paradigms I like to call features, such as “all truth is not useful” or the infamous recent statement of denial by Hinckley, “I don’t know that we teach that. I don’t know that we’ve ever taught that…” when asked about the one time feature of the Mormons paradigm, “as man is God once was. As God is man can become.”

That’s just the tip of this fascinating subject. The other side of what this subject leads to is that even we, ourselves, our thoughts and personalities, are nothing but walking paradigms, that are essentially features of a more overarching meta-paradigm. My meta-paradigm was once Mormonism. Now it’s more like what you describe, Paul, with a smidgen of SilverFox’s paradigm. Why do Mormons tend to lash out sometimes irrationally when their belief system (their meta-paradigm) is challenged. Because that meta-paradigm needs them to to survive.

Anyhoo, the subject of paradigms is fascinating to me. I call it “paradigmetics” and am developing a book on the subject. It’s a mixture of memetics with a twist that sets it apart from memetics, therefore the name change. Last year I was honored as the as the speaker for one month for the Utah Humanist organization in Salt Lake and the year before for the Utah Chapter of the American Atheists. I’m not the world’s best orator but the subject fascinated them so much that the Atheist group recommended me as a speaker at their national convention later that year, all expenses paid -- didn’t pan out though. And the Humanist group paid me a nice honorarium fee I wasn’t expecting. I plan to get back to the book once this organization gets fully on its feet. I set the book aside to focus on this because, among other things, based on what my research has led me to realize, the way to address a paradigm run amok, such as Mormonism, isn’t to confront it directly but to establish a more healthy paradigm to compete alongside it. Then in time nature will take its course, whatever that course may be.

I wish I could say more but watch for the book in about 35 years! Actually expect it in about 3 to 5 years. The Post-Mormon Community is a more important priority for me now.

Jeff

[dev_team]

I never worried about what kingdom I would make in the next life, and I do not worry about the next life now. I am just concerned about this life. It is what was given to live, when the next comes, then I will be conserned about living there.

Nikki


Yes Nicki! I agree, this life comes first. This business about enduring this life for one hoped for later is for the birds, or for the angels or whatever, but not for me. I live in reality (as much as I am able to percienve what's real) not on Fantasy Island. :eek:

Jeff

[dev_team]

Jeff, love this board, love the articles, etc. Thanks for your dedication to creating a place for us PostMos to go. :)


Thanks SF. We're just getting started. Expect much more of the same as we continue to grow!

Hey, does everyone see the threaded list at the top of opened threads? If not to to Display Modes and select Threaded Mode instead of the other options. Please, whether you change it or not, if you've not been seeing the threaded list I'd like to know so I can make sure it's set as the default mode.

Jeff

[dev_team]

Thanks SF. We're just getting started. Expect much more of the same as we continue to grow!

Hey, does everyone see the threaded list at the top of opened threads? If not to to Display Modes and select Threaded Mode instead of the other options. Please, whether you change it or not, if you've not been seeing the threaded list I'd like to know so I can make sure it's set as the default mode.

Jeff

I also want to add my thanks to you SiverFox and to everyone who has signed up and is participating in our community! Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please consider this OUR community not mine. I’m just doing what can to get our community rolling.

We now have over 90 registered users with that number going up every day. After our announcement on the 2nd about a new magazine section I expect the rate of growth to noticeably increase. I'm crossing my fingers!

Jeff

[bigeddy]

Anyhoo, the subject of paradigms is fascinating to me. I call it “paradigmetics” and am developing a book on the subject. It’s a mixture of memetics with a twist that sets it apart from memetics, therefore the name change.

Jeff,

I like your "paradigmetics" and I don't know what memetics is. Please enlighten. It may relate to "the great spiral" with its red, blue, orange, etc. memes. Is that what it is about?

Years ago I was browsing and read the back cover of a Ken Wilber book ("A Brief History of Everything"). The blurb described the author as searching for underlying patterns (paradigms) that explain growth. I have found Wilber's stuff to be wonderful.

As to this thread. It is clear that religion is a profound need at certain stages of personal evolution. It gets ugly when growth stays very horizontal and never becomes vertical. My daughter and I call this the "Analysis of Dasher's Hooves" syndrome. When we fail to grow beyond, to a higher plane of cohesion, we get stuck in the horizontal growth where we are writing tome after tome about the intricacies of Santa, the elves and the reindeer. All the while believing fully that it is all "true". It is fun to watch people grow vertically and find a new paradigm that includes, enfolds and then goes beyond what could be understood in the old paradigm. It is not so much that Mormonism ceased to be "true" for me. It no longer was adequate to help understand the more complex, more ambiguous, deeper world I found myself in. So I am very interested in this area (paradigmatic) also.

I have also been reading and thinking a lot about the dialectical process lately. This last election truly concerned me and I finally figured out what was so disturbing. It is the level of polarized thinking that has been characterizing all the rhetoric and etc. I hear. The dialectical process was vital to the founding fathers. Have we gotten so far from it. I find that a true belief in and valueing of the dialectical process forces us to look to vertical growth rather than horizontal. I have been doing some writing on this subject (title: The Perils of a Polarized Populace.)

Ed

[Jeff_Ricks]

Anyhoo, the subject of paradigms is fascinating to me. I call it “paradigmetics” and am developing a book on the subject. It’s a mixture of memetics with a twist that sets it apart from memetics, therefore the name change.

Jeff,

I like your "paradigmetics" and I don't know what memetics is. Please enlighten. It may relate to "the great spiral" with its red, blue, orange, etc. memes. Is that what it is about?

Years ago I was browsing and read the back cover of a Ken Wilber book ("A Brief History of Everything"). The blurb described the author as searching for underlying patterns (paradigms) that explain growth. I have found Wilber's stuff to be wonderful.

As to this thread. It is clear that religion is a profound need at certain stages of personal evolution. It gets ugly when growth stays very horizontal and never becomes vertical. My daughter and I call this the "Analysis of Dasher's Hooves" syndrome. When we fail to grow beyond, to a higher plane of cohesion, we get stuck in the horizontal growth where we are writing tome after tome about the intricacies of Santa, the elves and the reindeer. All the while believing fully that it is all "true". It is fun to watch people grow vertically and find a new paradigm that includes, enfolds and then goes beyond what could be understood in the old paradigm. It is not so much that Mormonism ceased to be "true" for me. It no longer was adequate to help understand the more complex, more ambiguous, deeper world I found myself in. So I am very interested in this area (paradigmatic) also.

I have also been reading and thinking a lot about the dialectical process lately. This last election truly concerned me and I finally figured out what was so disturbing. It is the level of polarized thinking that has been characterizing all the rhetoric and etc. I hear. The dialectical process was vital to the founding fathers. Have we gotten so far from it. I find that a true belief in and valueing of the dialectical process forces us to look to vertical growth rather than horizontal. I have been doing some writing on this subject (title: The Perils of a Polarized Populace.)

Ed
Memetics comes from a word invented by Richard Dawkins a well-known popular writer in the field of zoology (someone correct me if I get any of this wrong). In a book he called The Selfish Gene he explained the science of the gene and how essentially genes are selfish. They have one interest and one interest alone -- a selfish interest -- to propagate what they are to the next generation. As you well know that’s the nature of genes. And because this one motivation surpasses any other force that might influence them, as they propagate they also acquire features that help them to survive and propagate. Survival of the fittest, you know.

In one of his chapters he also talks about how thoughts (what I like to call paradigms) also have the same selfish motivation – to propagate. And because of that hey also acquire features that help them to survive propagate within a given culture. While a gene might acquire a feature that is made manifest in its host as long sharp claws that help the host survive and propagate the speices (physical features in other words) paradigms likewise acquire mental features, or what I also call sub-paradigms that cause the host to exhibit behaviors that help the paradigm to survive and continue to propagate. For example, Mormonism is a paradigm that has acquired many sub-paradigms as it has evolved from generation to generation (and it certainly has evolved hasn’t it!) One of its sub-paradigms that help it, the paradigm, to survive is the notion that people who leave the church are evil and should be shunned. Why? Because they threaten the survival of the paradigm. It seems that Mormons can generally tolerate people who leave the church and leave it alone, but those who openly challenge it are a threat to the survival of the paradigm that are dealt with when its sub-paradigms (often irrational and bizzare paradigms of rationalization and accusations) come into play causing the hosts to repel those who threaten the overall meta-paradigm, Mormonism. It’s similar to a growl of a dog when it perceives that it is threatened. Doing so an odd behavior when it comes right down to it but it's a behavioral feature the animal acquired through the evolution of the genes of its ancestors.

That’s it in a nutshell Ed. It’s a fascinating subject to me, and I think it would be to you too. It’s a relatively new science and some professionals still consider it pseudo-science, which may be why you’ve not come across it in your field of psychology. But if you do a search on memes, or memetics, especially combined with Richard Dawkins, or Susan Blackmore, or Aaron Lynch (authors of three good books I have on the subject) you’ll find plenty of good information. One of the books (Lynch) uses Mormonism in one chapter as an example of how memetics influences its dogma and culture. Lynch’s Book is called, Though Contagion, and Blackmore’s is, The Meme Machine.

So there you have it. The Reader’s Digest version of memetics and paradigmetics. Among other things, I prefer the word, paradigmetics because the name itself hints at least a little at what the subject is about, but who knows what a meme is?? Dawkins invented the word by combining the Greek (or is it Latin) word mem (meaning a unit of thought) and combined it with the word, gene. But there are other more important reasons I prefer the name change and invented (as far as I can tell) the word, paradigmetics, which I will cover in depth in my book – when I get back to it someday.

Always good to hear from you Ed!

Jeff

[peter_mary]

Memetics comes from a word invented by Richard Dawkins a well-known popular writer in the field of zoology (someone correct me if I get any of this wrong). In a book he called The Selfish Gene he explained the science of the gene and how essentially genes are selfish. They have one interest and one interest alone -- a selfish interest -- to propagate what they are to the next generation. As you well know that’s the nature of genes. And because this one motivation surpasses any other force that might influence them, as they propagate they also acquire features that help them to survive and propagate. Survival of the fittest, you know.

In one of his chapters he also talked about how thoughts (what I like to call paradigms) also have the same selfish motivation – to propagate. And because of that hey also acquire features that help them to propagate.

Because I'm a simple guy, I think of 'memes' as the "genes of culture." Where genes propagate the physical traits that help an organism compete, evolve and survive, memes propagate the traits that help a culture compete, evolve and survive. In many ways, individual organisms are to a culture what individual cells are to an organism, and so the same principles of competition and evolution apply, but are manifested in the psycho-social context as opposed to the physiological context. At least that's how my brain makes sense out of the rascals...

Paul

[Jeff_Ricks]

I have been doing some writing on this subject (title: The Perils of a Polarized Populace.)

Ed


I want to add that you have me very curious about The Perils of a Polarized Populace. It sounds interesting an I look forward to your thoughts on the subject. Maybe it's something to go in the magazine? Either way I'd like to read it when it's done.

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

Because I'm a simple guy, I think of 'memes' as the "genes of culture." Where genes propagate the physical traits that help an organism compete, evolve and survive, memes propagate the traits that help a culture compete, evolve and survive. In many ways, individual organisms are to a culture what individual cells are to an organism, and so the same principles of competition and evolution apply, but are manifested in the psycho-social context as opposed to the physiological context. At least that's how my brain makes sense out of the rascals...

Paul


Yeah, what he said! I like the way you word things Paul. I wish I had your knack for writing. I seem to struggle with the craft.

Jeff

[free thinker]

above us only sky.
No hell below us.
It's easy if you try.
Imagine all the people living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope one day they will join us.
And the world will live as one.
John Lennon

Now let me tell you. I am politically conservative. So for me to be quoting this from John Lennon is something I thought I would never do. But I have found myself thinking lately that organized religion does at least as much harm as good. What horrific things have been done in God's name!! Religious fanatics are the most fanatical, and nutty of all the nuts. Say like uh , David Koresh, Jim Jones, and any number of the early pope's.
You get the drift!

I have spiritual longings, but since my realization of mormonism's fraud, I am out of the organized deal for now.

As long as I am quoting rock and rollers how about this one?

"We dont get fooled again"
The Who

Free Thinker

[Jeff_Ricks]

above us only sky.
No hell below us.
It's easy if you try.
Imagine all the people living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope one day they will join us.
And the world will live as one.
John Lennon

Now let me tell you. I am politically conservative. So for me to be quoting this from John Lennon is something I thought I would never do. But I have found myself thinking lately that organized religion does at least as much harm as good. What horrific things have been done in God's name!! Religious fanatics are the most fanatical, and nutty of all the nuts. Say like uh , David Koresh, Jim Jones, and any number of the early pope's.
You get the drift!

I have spiritual longings, but since my realization of mormonism's fraud, I am out of the organized deal for now.

As long as I am quoting rock and rollers how about this one?

"We dont get fooled again"
The Who

Free Thinker


Thanks for the reminders. John Lennon's song has a lot of meaning for me. I used to think he was a very evil person with evil ideas. And We Don't Get Fooled Again is one I too have thought of from time to time and tell my self, "Yeah! Tell me about it!"

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

After reading again my post I feel a little embarrased about running off as I did. First off, I'm no expert on the subject of memes and memetics but it's one of my favorite subjects so I get a little carried away with myself when I talk about it sometimes. And it's a little arrogant of me to challenge someone like Richard Dawkins -- his choice of the word meme for instance. And I in no way think that I created the concept or paradigm that this website is generally based on -- the one on the home page I mean. It is simply who we are. All I can hope to do by creating this website is to offer it as a place of community for people like us who share this common paradigm. Where it goes from there is up to us. It's gratifying and humbling to see it starting to become what I hope it will become and I thank you all for being a part of it!

Jeff

[wescape]

I certainly had huge amounts of skepticism and doubt towards believing in anything after my experience of deception and betrayal with Mormonism. Initially, I concluded that all religion was a big scam that revolved around control, greed and not having to think. I wanted nothing to do with any of it. At the same time I was trying to figure out which worldview did make sense to me. I looked into other forms of spirituality, philosophy, and science. None of it really impressed me too much. I had always been skeptical of Darwin and evolution and with the development of DNA those theories are now falling apart (I'm amazed at the level that some of these scientists try to hold onto these theories even though there is overwhelmingly strong evidence against them - it reminds me a lot of the blind faith of Mormonism).

Anyway, then I met someone who didn't fit into the way I had come to see the world. Like I said, I considered all religion and "religious people" to have the same motive: greed and control. But this guy was different. The more I questioned him about difficult issues the more he encouraged me to continue down that path. He had nothing to hide and actually cared about me as a person. He was not trying to "convert" me or get me to join his group. It took several months before I trusted him but eventually I came to see that he was for real. This man has been like a father to me for the past 8 years and it has been wonderful. He embodied the love and acceptance of Jesus that I had never before experienced in Mormonism or anywhere else. He actually listened to my story and valued me as a person, warts and all. It was amazing to be treated with this kind of dignity and respect.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

I had always been skeptical of Darwin and evolution and with the development of DNA those theories are now falling apart (I'm amazed at the level that some of these scientists try to hold onto these theories even though there is overwhelmingly strong evidence against them - it reminds me a lot of the blind faith of Mormonism).


Wes I have to question your statement that DNA has caused evolution to fall apart. I think it has done quite the opposite. And it's been my experience in my studies that evolution has been so overwhelmingly affirmed by the geological and archeological records that it's virtually a given.

Jeff

[wescape]

Jeff,

Many people think that evolution is a given but there is actually very strong and overwhelmingly compelling evidence against it. Unfortunately, there is an active movement to keep this information suppressed (much like what the Mormon church does actually) by many in the scientific community. They have just as much invested in evolution being true as the church does in Mormonism being true. I have a very interesting video about this that I'd be happy to send you if you're interested.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

Many people think that evolution is a given but there is actually very strong and overwhelmingly compelling evidence against it. Unfortunately, there is an active movement to keep this information suppressed (much like what the Mormon church does actually) by many in the scientific community. They have just as much invested in evolution being true as the church does in Mormonism being true. I have a very interesting video about this that I'd be happy to send you if you're interested.

Wes


I'd like to take a look at the video. I'll private message you my address. I have to say that if it's put out by a religious organization then I'm skeptical. I've seen too many things twisted and misrepresented by religiously motivated organizations. But if it's put out by a scientific group that doesn't have an obvious religious bias then I'm very interested in it. But either way I’ll take a look.

Jeff

[wescape]

Glad you're willing to see it Jeff. Actually I have two different ones that I'll put on the same tape. The first is about a high school biology teacher here in Washington who was moved to another department after raising questions about the validity of evolution by teaching things out of scientific journals. He felt that the kids in his class should have all the facts concerning the theory of evolution (and there are many facts about it that are usually never taught) so they could make an informed decision about its validity for themselves. The second video goes more in depth into the DNA issues. None of the scientists on these videos claim to be religious but even if they were, the facts they present stand alone. Have you seen the DNA vs. Book of Mormon video? That is one example of people with strong religious motivation and yet none of their facts about the issues are distorted and the video has helped many people see the falsehood of Mormonism.

You know what is ironic about this issue? Galileo was condemned for heresy by the Catholic church when he claimed that Copernicus was right about the earth revolving around the sun rather than vice versa. It wasn't until 1992 that the pope finally admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun. Unbelievable!

So here's how I see it. People don't like it when what they have believed for a long time is challenged. It's disruptive and uncomfortable. This applies to all people, not just those who are religious. What was the big deal if Galileo was right? It meant that the church had been wrong. In the same way, what's the big deal if Darwin was wrong? It means that many people will have to admit they were wrong. As we here at Post-mormons know very well from personal experience, that's not always very easy.

Anyway, my main objective is just to present the facts and let people decide for themselves. I'll be anxious to hear what you think of this new info about Darwin's theory.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Glad you're willing to see it Jeff. Actually I have two different ones that I'll put on the same tape. The first is about a high school biology teacher here in Washington who was moved to another department after raising questions about the validity of evolution by teaching things out of scientific journals. He felt that the kids in his class should have all the facts concerning the theory of evolution (and there are many facts about it that are usually never taught) so they could make an informed decision about its validity for themselves. The second video goes more in depth into the DNA issues. None of the scientists on these videos claim to be religious but even if they were, the facts they present stand alone. Have you seen the DNA vs. Book of Mormon video? That is one example of people with strong religious motivation and yet none of their facts about the issues are distorted and the video has helped many people see the falsehood of Mormonism.

You know what is ironic about this issue? Galileo was condemned for heresy by the Catholic church when he claimed that Copernicus was right about the earth revolving around the sun rather than vice versa. It wasn't until 1992 that the pope finally admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun. Unbelievable!

So here's how I see it. People don't like it when what they have believed for a long time is challenged. It's disruptive and uncomfortable. This applies to all people, not just those who are religious. What was the big deal if Galileo was right? It meant that the church had been wrong. In the same way, what's the big deal if Darwin was wrong? It means that many people will have to admit they were wrong. As we here at Post-mormons know very well from personal experience, that's not always very easy.

Anyway, my main objective is just to present the facts and let people decide for themselves. I'll be anxious to hear what you think of this new info about Darwin's theory.

Wes

I think I'll reserve further comment on this until I've seen the video. But I will comment on the DNA vs. Book of Mormon video. I thought it was well done but was disappointed at the deceptive bait and switch that is used at the end where is tacked on a commercial for Christianity. The video had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity but at the end, when the video is essentially over, the subject awkwardly changes and the narrator does a sales pitch for his religion. I thought it smacked of some of Mormonism’s bait and switch methods, such as promoting the Bible to the world as a holy book, then when sucked in by the sales pitch the Book of Mormon is substituted and promoted instead. Both practices to me are dishonest. But that’s just my opinion.

Jeff

[wescape]

For the record, I would have preferred that the makers of the DNA vs. Book of Mormon video kept their religious opinions to themselves at the end. I think it would have been more effective without that. Nonetheless, those opinions do not negate the truth contained in the video. My point was that just because someone has particular views, it does not invalidate the truth the may have to communicate.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

For the record, I would have preferred that the makers of the DNA vs. Book of Mormon video kept their religious opinions to themselves at the end. I think it would have been more effective without that. Nonetheless, those opinions do not negate the truth contained in the video. My point was that just because someone has particular views, it does not invalidate the truth the may have to communicate.

Wes


I agree Wes. I'll view the video you're sending with that in mind and appreciate you sending it to me.

I still like to watch the DNA vs. BOM video but switch it off when it gets to the bait and switch at the end.

Jeff

[wescape]

Sounds good Jeff. Again, thanks for your openness and thanks also for creating a place where people can dialogue.

To tell you the truth, I usually turn off the DNA vs. BOM video before the end part too! :)

Wes

[candy15]

above us only sky.
No hell below us.
It's easy if you try.
Imagine all the people living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope one day they will join us.
And the world will live as one.
John Lennon

Now let me tell you. I am politically conservative. So for me to be quoting this from John Lennon is something I thought I would never do. But I have found myself thinking lately that organized religion does at least as much harm as good. What horrific things have been done in God's name!! Religious fanatics are the most fanatical, and nutty of all the nuts. Say like uh , David Koresh, Jim Jones, and any number of the early pope's.
You get the drift!

I have spiritual longings, but since my realization of mormonism's fraud, I am out of the organized deal for now.

As long as I am quoting rock and rollers how about this one?

"We dont get fooled again"
The Who

Free Thinker

Happy to hear you quote John Lennon. Imagine is a great song, great lyrics. Don't let the fact that it's a "Beatle" song take away from its value as a great message. There's a reason it's had the acclaim it has. And let's Give Peace a Chance!! Yeah!

[Unregistered]

I know what you mean when you talk about how many members try to blow off the ugliness of the world, building a disney fantasy bubble around their peripheral. I feel bad for the people that believe they need to censor their life from everything that they deem unpleasant. Growing up with one side of my divorced family Mormon and the other non-mormon, I used to feel slightly dirty around my mormon friends and family, just because I had been exposed to a different family and culture that contradicted the norms of your typical Utah family. Just as I believe that one needs to be familar with death to really appreciate their life, I believe that one must respeact all aspects of the world. Jesus didn't gauge things by culture, social norms, or aesthetics (probably spelled that wrong). I just want the real picture whether it is a happy or sad one. I think it is pretty convinient that when we die we're going to live in paradise with all our family and friends. This version is a lot harder to confront on a logical level, when you die the lights are turned off and you cease to exist.

[kevinbywater]

Free Thinker opined:
"...organized religion does at least as much harm as good. What horrific things have been done in God's name!! Religious fanatics are the most fanatical, and nutty of all the nuts. Say like uh , David Koresh, Jim Jones, and any number of the early pope's. I have spiritual longings, but since my realization of mormonism's fraud, I am out of the organized deal for now."

Free Thinker,

There's little doubt that "organized religion" can be problematic, even detrimental. But I'm just not persuaded that "religious fanatics are the most fanatical." Certainly Koresh, Smith, Jones and others did some bizarre things. But what of the political fanatics? What of V.I. Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin and a host of others? Might I recommend a book? The Black Book of Communism. And another? Death by Government. Maybe these can provide a larger perspective.

Kind Regards, Kevin

[nikki]

Free Thinker opined:
"...organized religion does at least as much harm as good. What horrific things have been done in God's name!! Religious fanatics are the most fanatical, and nutty of all the nuts. Say like uh , David Koresh, Jim Jones, and any number of the early pope's. I have spiritual longings, but since my realization of mormonism's fraud, I am out of the organized deal for now."

Free Thinker,

There's little doubt that "organized religion" can be problematic, even detrimental. But I'm just not persuaded that "religious fanatics are the most fanatical." Certainly Koresh, Smith, Jones and others did some bizarre things. But what of the political fanatics? What of V.I. Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin and a host of others? Might I recommend a book? The Black Book of Communism. And another? Death by Government. Maybe these can provide a larger perspective.

Kind Regards, Kevin

thank you KbW (Keivn)

I enjoyed your post, I enjoyed reading today all the posts on the threads. I hadn't gotton back to this site since I posted last on this thread.

I always like getting recommendations on books to read. My son and I enjoy a good cross section of topics to talk about. He is just great at history, goverment history and interaction within many nations, his mind captures even the smallest details of conflicts with in countries, group and religious conflicts within and without the country also, plus the history of it!

So, I will looking up the books you suggested and thumb though the topic, I do not know any information on the books, except communism has not worked. He doesn't like talking about the LDS Church much, and I cannot blame him.

[peter_mary]

There's little doubt that "organized religion" can be problematic, even detrimental. But I'm just not persuaded that "religious fanatics are the most fanatical."

Kind Regards, Kevin

Fanatics of all flavors are dangerous, and have committed heinous crimes against humanity since the dawn of time. There can be no question that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hussein and countless others have committed gross crimes to further their personal or nationalistc fanaticism.

I think that for me, the reason religious fanatics are in a league of their own is that they justify their behavior with a divine mandate. Hiding behind the secret revelation that God has provided to them alone, they prey upon one of the great vulnerabilities of human beings--our belief in diety. To couple what people want to believe is right, with polorization and zealous black & white thinking to the point of being willing to fly airplanes into buildings is terrifying. You can't talk to that kind of fanaticism. It is willing to die as it kills you in the name of God, and for whatever reason, right or wrong, that is more frightening to me.

On the other hand, the really BIG threats to global peace have been the product of secular movements, communism being the latest variety. WWI and WWII were largely secular (although it's hard to completely overlook the religious overtones of gassing 6 million Jews for being JEWISH, though there was obviously also an ethnic element.) Stalin's genocide and Mao's cultural revolution were secular, and served to pit those two gigantic powers against the west. US interests that also keep the world off balance (see Iraq...) are equally secular. I don't like it, but where I start getting really nervous is when it appears that the war is shifting from one of national interest to one of right versus wrong. Things are beginning to me to appear to be migrating to a Christian vs. Muslim conflict, and for right or wrong, rational or not, that makes me even less comfortable than I was before.

But Kevin, you're right...fanaticism by any name is still fanaticism, and religous or secular, it is dangerous. :(

Thanks for posting!

Paul

[Unregistered]

Free Thinker opined:
"...organized religion does at least as much harm as good. What horrific things have been done in God's name!! Religious fanatics are the most fanatical, and nutty of all the nuts. Say like uh , David Koresh, Jim Jones, and any number of the early pope's. I have spiritual longings, but since my realization of mormonism's fraud, I am out of the organized deal for now."

Free Thinker,

There's little doubt that "organized religion" can be problematic, even detrimental. But I'm just not persuaded that "religious fanatics are the most fanatical." Certainly Koresh, Smith, Jones and others did some bizarre things. But what of the political fanatics? What of V.I. Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin and a host of others? Might I recommend a book? The Black Book of Communism. And another? Death by Government. Maybe these can provide a larger perspective.

Kind Regards, Kevin

I do not know about your computer screen, but on mine Kevin's entry pops way out of line from the other posts, and with a BIG RED "Y". We have a few looking at the screen saying "what the heck!"

He's not in one of those mountian hide aways in Colorado Springs is he?

makes me feel warm a fuzzy.

[silverfox]

I do not know about your computer screen, but on mine Kevin's entry pops way out of line from the other posts, and with a BIG RED "Y". We have a few looking at the screen saying "what the heck!"

He's not in one of those mountian hide aways in Colorado Springs is he?

makes me feel warm a fuzzy.

The big red Y indicates that Kevin uses Yahoo messenger. I believe if you click on it you can chat with him if you wish.

[Unregistered]

The big red Y indicates that Kevin uses Yahoo messenger. I believe if you click on it you can chat with him if you wish.


Thanks! I wondered if we were being invaded by a think tank! LOL!

Boy, those yahoo guys, think of everything!!

[admin]

I do not know about your computer screen, but on mine Kevin's entry pops way out of line from the other posts, and with a BIG RED "Y". We have a few looking at the screen saying "what the heck!"

He's not in one of those mountian hide aways in Colorado Springs is he?

makes me feel warm a fuzzy.

Kevin needs to edit his location information, it's too long and causes his posts to be too wide. So, Kevin, if you see this please make the change. Thanks!

Jeff

[Born Free]

I moved into a protracted period of Agnosticism after seeing the flaws of Mormonism, which was followed by a closer look at Christianty and seeing all its warts.

Then about 6 years ago I heard John Shelby Spong (retired Episcopalian Archbishop of Newark, New York) being interviewed on radio here. His take on spirituality was like a breath of fresh air. He is very clear about the unacceptability of the notion of a God who visits the earth to effect Divine miracles, and how difficult that notion of God is for many thinking people in this day and age.

I bought and read his book Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and wished something like that had been available when I was 18 or 20, and feeling very unsettled in the Church. Every page was a breath of fresh air (for me).

Last year I attended an address he gave here entitled "Can we conceive of a God beyond theism". I would recommend his material to anyone who finds the philosophy of eastern religions of appeal, and at the same time is not affraid to consider the sociological sources of religion. He offers a very articulate alternative to fear-based tribal thinking, and offers a very well considered alternative in love-centric philosophy.

I found some valuable new information and paradigms in his work. Recommended.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I moved into a protracted period of Agnosticism after seeing the flaws of Mormonism, which was followed by a closer look at Christianty and seeing all its warts.

Then about 6 years ago I heard John Shelby Spong (retired Episcopalian Archbishop of Newark, New York) being interviewed on radio here. His take on spirituality was like a breath of fresh air. He is very clear about the unacceptability of the notion of a God who visits the earth to effect Divine miracles, and how difficult that notion of God is for many thinking people in this day and age.

I bought and read his book Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and wished something like that had been available when I was 18 or 20, and feeling very unsettled in the Church. Every page was a breath of fresh air (for me).

Last year I attended an address he gave here entitled "Can we conceive of a God beyond theism". I would recommend his material to anyone who finds the philosophy of eastern religions of appeal, and at the same time is not affraid to consider the sociological sources of religion. He offers a very articulate alternative to fear-based tribal thinking, and offers a very well considered alternative in love-centric philosophy.

I found some valuable new information and paradigms in his work. Recommended.


Thank you for the recommendation. It sounds like worthwhile reading.

Jeff

[peter_mary]

Then about 6 years ago I heard John Shelby Spong (retired Episcopalian Archbishop of Newark, New York) being interviewed on radio here. His take on spirituality was like a breath of fresh air. He is very clear about the unacceptability of the notion of a God who visits the earth to effect Divine miracles, and how difficult that notion of God is for many thinking people in this day and age.

I bought and read his book Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and wished something like that had been available when I was 18 or 20, and feeling very unsettled in the Church. Every page was a breath of fresh air (for me).



Interesting! When I read Spong, ("Liberating the Gospels,") it actually had a different effect on me, one that is a part of the reason that Spong is so controversial among Christians. I THOROUGHLY enjoyed his book, but it was actually intstrumental in helping me unravel Christianity rather than create a vehicle by which I could continue to travel that path. Spong's insights (although again, controversial) were instrumental in snapping my awareness to the current parameters of my own paradigms, and blasted them wider than they had ever been. The result for me was seeing the cultural currents that produced Christianity as we know it, but I failed to gain an appreciation of the divine currents that may have produced the same.

I echo STURGDW's recommendation for reading Spong, if for no other reason than an alternative perspective. His books are very accessible to lay-folks like me, and I found the one I read to be very enjoyable. :)

Paul

[Born Free]

Interesting! When I read Spong, ("Liberating the Gospels,") it actually had a different effect on me, one that is a part of the reason that Spong is so controversial among Christians.

I echo STURGDW's recommendation for reading Spong, if for no other reason than an alternative perspective. His books are very accessible to lay-folks like me, and I found the one I read to be very enjoyable. :)

Paul

Paul,

Spongs impact upon me was not to make the old Christian paradigm comfortable. But it did offer me a means to have a more settled relationship with the residual value of Christ after all the 'divine intervention' stuff was stripped away.

I have never read his book Here I Stand, but have an audio copy of an address he gave in Australia, in which he covered much of the content: women and the church, blacks, and homosexuals, and while I was way beyond having a problems with any of those issues, his sharing of his learning curve offered insight. Again the sociological basis of religion is a major theme. The 'God' we envision is limited by our maturity and intelligence.

I have regular discussion with an ex Uniting Church colleague over whether Spong has in fact jettisoned Christianity, but just holds on to a remnant. The debate is ongoing, but in the meantime I have subscribed to his weekly eNewsletter, and find it most stimulating.

I do find his central idea that all efforts to nail God down (eg discourses as the Trinity) are between arrogant and idolotrous. They can be likened to insisting that the Earth is the centre of the Universe - our ongoing narcissism.

[free thinker]

Free Thinker opined:
"...organized religion does at least as much harm as good. What horrific things have been done in God's name!! Religious fanatics are the most fanatical, and nutty of all the nuts. Say like uh , David Koresh, Jim Jones, and any number of the early pope's. I have spiritual longings, but since my realization of mormonism's fraud, I am out of the organized deal for now."

re the most fanatical." Certainly Koresh, Smith, Jones and others did some bizarre things. But what of the political fanatics? What of V.I. Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin and a host of others? Might I recommend a book? The Black Book of Communism. And another? Death by Government. Maybe these can provide a larger perspective.

Kind Regards, Kevin

Yes of course there are nuts of the secular variety. The difference to me, is that when you come in the name of God ,you have a higher responsibilty. Using God as a foil to do dirty deeds is worse, because it disarms the victim by using his intention to serve God, as a way to weaken his defenses. Faith is used to replace reason. If I can identify my enemy, I am much more able to defend myself, and my psyche. This to me is the difference, and for me, it places the religious nut, and usurper, in a more culpable position. A " wolf in sheeps clothing" shall we say!! ;)

Free Thinker

[kevinbywater]

Yes of course there are nuts of the secular variety. The difference to me, is that when you come in the name of God ,you have a higher responsibilty. Using God as a foil to do dirty deeds is worse, because it disarms the victim by using his intention to serve God, as a way to weaken his defenses. Faith is used to replace reason. If I can identify my enemy, I am much more able to defend myself, and my psyche. This to me is the difference, and for me, it places the religious nut, and usurper, in a more culpable position. A " wolf in sheeps clothing" shall we say!! ;)

No question about it. A particular nefariousness arises from religous hypocrisy. The follower grants a benefit of the doubt to the leader. The virtue of trust is foiled by grotesque infidelity.

Interestingly enough, the testimonies of those who have exited Communism, for example, are very similar. Many of the dynamics are the same. The strength of belief in the cause is not qualitatively different than the strength of theistic faith. Here I'm thinking of Whitaker Chambers' work, Witness.

Even so, I share your repugnancy toward religous hypocrisy and abuse. Instructive is that Jesus's confrontation with religious leaders of his day focused less frequently on doctrine than deep infidelity; hubris and hypocrisy were the sins he most often targeted. And he regularly warned his disciples of the insidious vice of hypocrisy. Wolves in sheep's clothing, as you noted. Such moral confrontation and critique courses throughout the prophetic literature of the Old Testament and is exhibited forcefully in Romans 2 as well. This makes the hypocrisy so often manifest by those who claim Christ all the more grotesque.

[Jeff: I hope these observations are not seen as promoting any particular religious perspective -- except the validity of the moral critique of hypocrisy. The observations themselves seem apropos.]

Kind regards, Kevin

[nikki]

No question about it. A particular nefariousness arises from religous hypocrisy. The follower grants a benefit of the doubt to the leader. The virtue of trust is foiled by grotesque infidelity.

Interestingly enough, the testimonies of those who have exited Communism, for example, are very similar. Many of the dynamics are the same. The strength of belief in the cause is not qualitatively different than the strength of theistic faith. Here I'm thinking of Whitaker Chambers' work, Witness.

Even so, I share your repugnancy toward religous hypocrisy and abuse. Instructive is that Jesus's confrontation with religious leaders of his day focused less frequently on doctrine than deep infidelity; hubris and hypocrisy were the sins he most often targeted. And he regularly warned his disciples of the insidious vice of hypocrisy. Wolves in sheep's clothing, as you noted. Such moral confrontation and critique courses throughout the prophetic literature of the Old Testament and is exhibited forcefully in Romans 2 as well. This makes the hypocrisy so often manifest by those who claim Christ all the more grotesque.

[Jeff: I hope these observations are not seen as promoting any particular religious perspective -- except the validity of the moral critique of hypocrisy. The observations themselves seem apropos.]

Kind regards, Kevin

The Testimonies of people who are exiting communism sharing similiar views, should not be surprising, since most would have fallen under being exposed to Atheistic thinking, which like Christiany, Mormonism, etc., share one thing in common, and that is Atheists have a belief system, they are may subscribe to the Humanist thought, or Marixist thought as well as others. Only the Agnostic's do not have a belief system to fall away from since there thought ' I do not know, maybe, maybe not'.

Atheistism can also act as replace belief system.

There is a swing in the mainstream Christian groups currently happening, I heard an interview with author Jim Wallis, he has published a book titled "God's Politics". His book is a reformation of sorts, in the Evangelical movement.

Mr. Wallis thesis is, many in the Evangelical Moment are troubled by the use of Christ, towards the support of wealth, and power. When this is not were Christ would have been. Christ's would have been more with working to overcome poverty, and 'when I have done unto the least of my brothers, (sisters too), I have done unto you (meaning God).

I do not think 'doing unto' in the scriptures meaning taking advantage of, or stabbing our fellow mankind in the back. It meaning of course as we all know, helping other humans.

Mr. Walli's feelings are this is going to be a streghtening movement within the Evangelical segements, with as strong a voice as the 'extreme right' currenly has.

It is going to be interesting to see if this takes place.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Mr. Walli's feelings are this is going to be a streghtening movement within the Evangelical segements, with as strong a voice as the 'extreme right' currenly has.

It is going to be interesting to see if this takes place.



I hope you're right Nikki. The right wing faction of Christians that have gained control over the Republican party and the government is to me frightening. In many ways I think their rise to power parallels the rise of nazism. Maybe that's a bit extreme but I'm calling it as I see it. I've been wrong before. (The last time was in 1982 as I recall. ;) )

Jeff

[nate]

The right wing faction of Christians that have gained control over the Republican party and the government is to me frightening. In many ways I think their rise to power parallels the rise of nazism. Jeff

I have to agree with Jeff here.

When this is mentioned, due to the taboo of the whole topic, people tend to cringe away and instantly think of statements like this as just what Jeff instinctively rationalized it as: extreme. But this is a common misunderstanding; current events are not being compared to WWII Germany, they are being compared to pre-WWII Germany, and unfortunately they are all too accurate.

For those still interested enough to read more, here is a great article on this:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

*A man coming to power by being appointed, not elected.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/gore.ends.campaign/index.html

*A terrorist attack on the heart of the country.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

*A suspension of key civil liberties "for security".
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

*A secret court with no oversight to issue warrants, wiretaps, and arrests.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4724.shtml

*A decision to incarcerate people without formal criminal charges.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm

*A population that doesn't care, as long as it doesn't effect their dailylives.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topnews101102002.html

And here are some very unsettling quotes (unsettling because they were made not by the current administration, nor by the current religious leaders in the country, but by none other than Adolf Hitler).

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

"God does not make cowardly nations free."

"Our prayer is: Lord God, let us never hesitate, let us never play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us."

"I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle."

"Never in these long years have we offered any other prayer but this: Lord, grant to our people peace at home, and grant and preserve to them peace from the foreign foe!"

"But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts."

"You [blue-collar workers] represent the most noble of slogans known to us: "God helps those who help themselves!'"

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. . . As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have
also a duty to my own people."

"An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An educated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism."

"It will be the Government's care to maintain honest cooperation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith."

[silverfox]

I have to agree with Jeff here.

When this is mentioned, due to the taboo of the whole topic, people tend to cringe away and instantly think of statements like this as just what Jeff instinctively rationalized it as: extreme. But this is a common misunderstanding; current events are not being compared to WWII Germany, they are being compared to pre-WWII Germany, and unfortunately they are all too accurate.

For those still interested enough to read more, here is a great article on this:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp



Interesting link, thanks, Nate! I find it amazing what is justified in the name of God.

[nate]

Your welcome. Since you replied so soon, I think you may have missed a huge chunk of my post that I just updated, adding more links and comparisons.

Nate

[miss taken]

Jeff mentioned if anyone had a replacement paradigm in place as they left the church. I didn't.

I still feel I am on a voyage of discovery, rather than thinking I have already got there (intellectually speaking).

Do I still believe in God and Jesus?

I think someone up there made a good point that you are conditioned in the church to think of all other churches as of the devil, and wrong. No matter how much the leadership tries to cover that up, it was always one of the biggest things I took out of the 1980's temple ordinance for example. The preacher was under the direct command of the devil. He represented organised religion. That is how it was.

I did go to a church of england for quite a few months.
I didn't like the set prayers and services, though some of it surprisingly enough, if not using the high church prayer book, was actually quite casual and refreshing.

There was doctrine in it that I just couldn't believe though. I don't believe that babies are born with Adam's sin, for example.

There's so much I dont believe in organised religion.
A friend said that I would never find a church that I was completely happy with. I guess she is right.

So I hope foremost, and try to use love as a guiding principle (apologies if that sounds trite, it is meant sincerely) and take the best of what people say, including the great religious and political leaders, 'and disregard the rest' as the song goes...

Mary

[silverfox]

Jeff mentioned if anyone had a replacement paradigm in place as they left the church. I didn't.

I still feel I am on a voyage of discovery, rather than thinking I have already got there (intellectually speaking).

Do I still believe in God and Jesus?

I think someone up there made a good point that you are conditioned in the church to think of all other churches as of the devil, and wrong. No matter how much the leadership tries to cover that up, it was always one of the biggest things I took out of the 1980's temple ordinance for example. The preacher was under the direct command of the devil. He represented organised religion. That is how it was.

I did go to a church of england for quite a few months.
I didn't like the set prayers and services, though some of it surprisingly enough, if not using the high church prayer book, was actually quite casual and refreshing.

There was doctrine in it that I just couldn't believe though. I don't believe that babies are born with Adam's sin, for example.

There's so much I dont believe in organised religion.
A friend said that I would never find a church that I was completely happy with. I guess she is right.

So I hope foremost, and try to use love as a guiding principle (apologies if that sounds trite, it is meant sincerely) and take the best of what people say, including the great religious and political leaders, 'and disregard the rest' as the song goes...

Mary

I think replacement paradigm doesn't have to necessarily mean religion. Sometimes it's just appreciating a great love of life and nature.

I found that right after leaving the church it was a wonderful feeling to still be able to believe in a God and not have all the distaste about it - the guilt, the feelings of unworthiness ALL THE TIME. It was all about love, learning, appreciating.

I zoomed my focus in that direction and began researching it on my own. At first I felt a strong need to find another religion. But I just didn't trust that avenue at all. Not after my experience as a Mo.

After researching, that's when I started questioning the whole concept of a hereafter, Christ's purpose, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. Very very very interesting views and angles from all over the place.

So now I just don't know about any of that. But I feel that the story Christ's example isn't a bad one, whether he existed or not, whether it's accurate or not.

For the moment I cherish my loved ones and the time we share with each other. The in depth talks, the unconditional love, etc. This is what has been a most valuable replacement for me.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff mentioned if anyone had a replacement paradigm in place as they left the church. I didn't.

I still feel I am on a voyage of discovery, rather than thinking I have already got there (intellectually speaking).



For the record, the paradigm that I switched to was Christianity but eventually adopted a more general one. Peter_Mary might challenge me on my next statement but I think we always have an underlying paradigm, whether it is Mormonism, Christianity, Buddism, Atheism, Science, or just plain being comfortable with not knowing. For me a paradigm is simple a mental model we use on which we structure our life.

Like you Mary, I'm now comfortable with not having it all figured out and enjoy continually exploring and speculating on the possibilities. I do however technically fall under the category of atheist because I don’t believe in God in the sense that he is a being residing somewhere in the universe. Hmmm...never thought of this before but since the word 'atheist' is often used disparagingly I think I'll call myself a post-theist from now on. I'm simply someone who used to believe in that kind of a god but no longer does.

However, to muddy this up a little I will say that I do believe there’s more to us than what we perceive as our Self. In my model, if God exists it is me, and you, and each of us. In my current paradigm we are each God of the reality we were born into and no one can take that away from us, short of snuffing out our life. As God, our throne that we are given sole rights to is our unique point of view. No one can fill in for us; we always sit on that throne, whether awake or asleep, until the day we die. These are my views on this, I don’t mean to sound as if it is fact.

Each of our worlds are different. Let me describe the world in which I sit on the throne as God. In my world I was born of good parents named Don and Iris. My father was a professional artist (http://www.leslielevy.com/lim_ed_view.php?pg=1&offset=11&id=drick&PHPSESSID=50657e2ed2a112beed2c08947a28af35) and a devout Mormon until the day he died. My mother is still living and resides with my twin sister. Yep, THIS God has a twin sister, Becky. This God also has five other siblings, four of which are still living and still Mormon, and one of which is also an professional artist (http://www.meyergallery.com/Artists/Marty_Ricks/marty_ricks.html). My twin sister and my mother are no longer Mormon. This God was also in the art business for a few years and has pretty much had a hard time staying in any typical box, except Mormonism for 40 years. So, that's a little about my world and my kingdom. I rather like my kingdom these days but it also has its challenges, just as any king worth his salt has challenges from time to time in dealing with his kingdom. Some of them have been significant challenges, but all in all it's been a pretty decent kingdom and there's a lot more still to explore and enjoy in it. At 50 years old I'm just getting started!

My point is, from my point of view I am God of that unique world I began to describe. So, technically I’m a post-theist but also technically I believe in God – in Me. As God I intend to make the best of my universe and kingdom. I intend to enjoy it to the max as long as I’m alive (in other words as long as I hold this office), and because I believe that others are Gods of similar, but unique kingdoms, I try to respect the boundaries of their kingdoms too and when I’m able I'll try to help them through struggles they might be having with theirs kingdoms. I like this passage from Psalms because it reminds me in a nutshell how it felt to me to go from the paradigm I was raised in (that I was a servant) to the paradigm I now structure my life on, that I am a king.

“He chose David His servant and took him from the sheepfolds; He brought him from tending ewes to be shepherd over... His inheritance.”

For what it’s worth that’s my personal point of view these days. I don't think that I have ever quite put it into "servant, king, kingdom" terms until I sat down to write this post. I offer it as a metaphor for my point of view, and on the outside chance that someone else might be making a similar transition from servant to king as they leave Mormonism, and can resonate with it.

Jeff

[miss taken]

For the record, the paradigm that I switched to was Christianity but eventually adopted a more general one. Peter_Mary might challenge me on my next statement but I think we always have an underlying paradigm, whether it is Mormonism, Christianity, Buddism, Atheism, Science, or just plain being comfortable with not knowing. For me a paradigm is simple a mental model we use on which we structure our life.

Like you Mary, I'm now comfortable with not having it all figured out and enjoy continually exploring and speculating on the possibilities. I do however technically fall under the category of atheist because I don’t believe in God in the sense that he is a being residing somewhere in the universe. Hmmm...never thought of this before but since the word 'atheist' is often used disparagingly I think I'll call myself a post-theist from now on. I'm simply someone who used to believe in that kind of a god but no longer does.

However, to muddy this up a little I will say that I do believe there’s more to us than what we perceive as our Self. In my model, if God exists it is me, and you, and each of us. In my current paradigm we are each God of the reality we were born into and no one can take that away from us, short of snuffing out our life. As God, our throne that we are given sole rights to is our unique point of view. No one can fill in for us; we always sit on that throne, whether awake or asleep, until the day we die. These are my views on this, I don’t mean to sound as if it is fact.

Each of our worlds are different. Let me describe the world in which I sit on the throne as God. In my world I was born of good parents named Don and Iris. My father was a professional artist (http://www.leslielevy.com/lim_ed_view.php?pg=1&offset=11&id=drick&PHPSESSID=50657e2ed2a112beed2c08947a28af35) and a devout Mormon until the day he died. My mother is still living and resides with my twin sister. Yep, THIS God has a twin sister, Becky. This God also has five other siblings, four of which are still living and still Mormon, and one of which is also an professional artist (http://www.meyergallery.com/Artists/Marty_Ricks/marty_ricks.html). My twin sister and my mother are no longer Mormon. This God was also in the art business for a few years and has pretty much had a hard time staying in any typical box, except Mormonism for 40 years. So, that's a little about my world and my kingdom. I rather like my kingdom these days but it also has its challenges, just as any king worth his salt has challenges from time to time in dealing with his kingdom. Some of them have been significant challenges, but all in all it's been a pretty decent kingdom and there's a lot more still to explore and enjoy in it. At 50 years old I'm just getting started!

My point is, from my point of view I am God of that unique world I began to describe. So, technically I’m a post-theist but also technically I believe in God – in Me. As God I intend to make the best of my universe and kingdom. I intend to enjoy it to the max as long as I’m alive (in other words as long as I hold this office), and because I believe that others are Gods of similar, but unique kingdoms, I try to respect the boundaries of their kingdoms too and when I’m able I'll try to help them through struggles they might be having with theirs kingdoms. I like this passage from Psalms because it reminds me in a nutshell how it felt to me to go from the paradigm I was raised in (that I was a servant) to the paradigm I now structure my life on, that I am a king.

“He chose David His servant and took him from the sheepfolds; He brought him from tending ewes to be shepherd over... His inheritance.”

For what it’s worth that’s my personal point of view these days. I don't think that I have ever quite put it into "servant, king, kingdom" terms until I sat down to write this post. I offer it as a metaphor for my point of view, and on the outside chance that someone else might be making a similar transition from servant to king as they leave Mormonism, and can resonate with it.

Jeff

Hi Jeff, I like post-theist, I'll remember that one!!! I'm still working out what I believe, and reserve the right to change my mind, which is a privilege I never felt I had as LDS. I like your servant, king metaphor, though I would say that a true king also has to be a true servant. Dont know if I am making myself clear or not, but I think we should all have both in equal balance. Leading is serving. Maybe I'm off the point a little.

I checked out the paintings, they are beautiful, how do you get so much talent in one family. I love to paint myself, but I am amateur compared to this.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate it.

Mary (In age I'm not so far behind you, only 6 years!!! Oooh scary!!!)

[peter_mary]

Peter_Mary might challenge me on my next statement but I think we always have an underlying paradigm, whether it is Mormonism, Christianity, Buddism, Atheism, Science, or just plain being comfortable with not knowing. For me a paradigm is simple a mental model we use on which we structure our life.

Jeff
Nope, won't get a challenge from me! I believe that unless you can see the whole universe from the perspective of the whole universe (an experience that only an omnipotent/omniscient being could have), then you are by definition subject to the limits of a paradigm.

I've been struggling through a book that is WAY over my head called "Integral Psychology" by Ken Wilbur (Ed, have you read that one? Can you help me with the vocabulary? :o ). But one of the things that I have gleaned is a better appreciation for the evolution of the self through stages of awareness; from matter, to body, to soul to spirit; or from subconscious to conscious to supraconscious. Each lower level is nested within the next higher level (in a nested series he calls, not very creatively, "The Great Nest"), and you have to move through the lower level to get to the next level. Each step takes you to a broader paradigm, as you expand your awareness and concern from your physical body, to your personal mind/ego, to other people around you, to the whole of humanity, to the universe itself. Each time we move to another level, the old level is inside (remember the allegory of the sapling we talked about on another thread? Same idea), and our paradigms expand. But there is probably always another level beyond this one, a more complete paradigm, but as we approach infinity, it gets harder and harder to expand (which Wilbur hasn't addressed yet...it appears that he's going to suggest that there is a complete enlightenment that can be achieved, and I don't think there is...)

So bottom line is, I think that growth comes from constantly being engaged in seeking the boundaries of our current state of self-awareness and self-development, seeking out those paradigm parameters...and then smashing through them, with an awareness that when you do, you find yourself only at the next level, not the final level.

And, like Mary, I really like the term "Post-theist" as I think it accurately describes me, too! :)

By the way, the artistic ability in your family is simply amazing, my friend! I really appreciated the links to your dad's and your brother's work, and your own work compares nicely with theres! Thank you for that!

Peter_Mary

[nate]

I've been struggling through a book that is WAY over my head called "Integral Psychology" by Ken Wilbur

Paul,
Since you're reading Wilber, and apparently have an appreciation for the arts, I think you might like this. I've got this book called the Sacred Mirrors, by artist Alex Grey, and the forward is actually written by Wilber. Alex Grey does some amazing art the visually expresses alot of things that Wilber writes about.

Check out his site at www.alexgrey.com. I think you'll enjoy. Best introduction to his art would be to go to the site and click on "Chapel", then click on "Sacred Mirrors", and view the Flash presentation.

Nate

[peter_mary]

Peter_Mary,

Check out his site at www.alexgrey.com. I think you'll enjoy. Best introduction to his art would be to go to the site and click on "Chapel", then click on "Sacred Mirrors", and view the Flash presentation.

Nate

Thanks for the point! It was pretty dang cool...I expect it's fairly moving in person!

Peter_Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

For the record, the paradigm that I switched to was Christianity but eventually adopted a more general one. Peter_Mary might challenge me on my next statement but I think we always have an underlying paradigm, whether it is Mormonism, Christianity, Buddism, Atheism, Science, or just plain being comfortable with not knowing. For me a paradigm is simple a mental model we use on which we structure our life.

Like you Mary, I'm now comfortable with not having it all figured out and enjoy continually exploring and speculating on the possibilities. I do however technically fall under the category of atheist because I don’t believe in God in the sense that he is a being residing somewhere in the universe. Hmmm...never thought of this before but since the word 'atheist' is often used disparagingly I think I'll call myself a post-theist from now on. I'm simply someone who used to believe in that kind of a god but no longer does.

However, to muddy this up a little I will say that I do believe there’s more to us than what we perceive as our Self. In my model, if God exists it is me, and you, and each of us. In my current paradigm we are each God of the reality we were born into and no one can take that away from us, short of snuffing out our life. As God, our throne that we are given sole rights to is our unique point of view. No one can fill in for us; we always sit on that throne, whether awake or asleep, until the day we die. These are my views on this, I don’t mean to sound as if it is fact.

Each of our worlds are different. Let me describe the world in which I sit on the throne as God. In my world I was born of good parents named Don and Iris. My father was a professional artist (http://www.leslielevy.com/lim_ed_view.php?pg=1&offset=11&id=drick&PHPSESSID=50657e2ed2a112beed2c08947a28af35) and a devout Mormon until the day he died. My mother is still living and resides with my twin sister. Yep, THIS God has a twin sister, Becky. This God also has five other siblings, four of which are still living and still Mormon, and one of which is also an professional artist (http://www.meyergallery.com/Artists/Marty_Ricks/marty_ricks.html). My twin sister and my mother are no longer Mormon. This God was also in the art business for a few years and has pretty much had a hard time staying in any typical box, except Mormonism for 40 years. So, that's a little about my world and my kingdom. I rather like my kingdom these days but it also has its challenges, just as any king worth his salt has challenges from time to time in dealing with his kingdom. Some of them have been significant challenges, but all in all it's been a pretty decent kingdom and there's a lot more still to explore and enjoy in it. At 50 years old I'm just getting started!

My point is, from my point of view I am God of that unique world I began to describe. So, technically I’m a post-theist but also technically I believe in God – in Me. As God I intend to make the best of my universe and kingdom. I intend to enjoy it to the max as long as I’m alive (in other words as long as I hold this office), and because I believe that others are Gods of similar, but unique kingdoms, I try to respect the boundaries of their kingdoms too and when I’m able I'll try to help them through struggles they might be having with theirs kingdoms. I like this passage from Psalms because it reminds me in a nutshell how it felt to me to go from the paradigm I was raised in (that I was a servant) to the paradigm I now structure my life on, that I am a king.

“He chose David His servant and took him from the sheepfolds; He brought him from tending ewes to be shepherd over... His inheritance.”

For what it’s worth that’s my personal point of view these days. I don't think that I have ever quite put it into "servant, king, kingdom" terms until I sat down to write this post. I offer it as a metaphor for my point of view, and on the outside chance that someone else might be making a similar transition from servant to king as they leave Mormonism, and can resonate with it.

Jeff

This morning as I was headed to my porcelain furnished reading room I pulled a book from my bookshelf by Steven Hawking called, The Universe in a Nutshell. It’s a beautifully illustrated book that I highly recommend for anyone with a layperson’s interest in modern physics, like me. As a matter of fact, I’m such a layperson that I get bored with books that don’t have lots of pictures!

I skimmed through a couple of pages on Einstein and his theory of relativity and it reminded me that relativity ties in somewhat with what I was trying to describe in my previous post in this thread. According to relativity, each person’s experience of time and space is different from everyone else. In other words, time passes at a different rate for everyone, but the differences are normally so small that it appears to be the same for everyone. The rate that time passes is dependent on the speed with which an individual is moving. For example, consider two people of the same age where one takes a vacation in space travelling at near the speed of light for say, two weeks, then returns to earth to meet up with the other person who remained on earth the entire time. As it turns out, to the space traveler only two weeks will have passed by but to the person who stayed on earth perhaps 20 years will have come and gone. This proves that we each experience life in realities that are literally different. No one can share our reality, including any so-called God. We are the king and god of it. It is ours alone!

By the way, time distortion was first proven to be fact when an atomic clock (an extremely accurate electronic clock) was placed in two jet airplanes that few around the world in opposite directions. When they both returned their clocks were showing a different time. The occupants of each plane experienced a slightly different reality.

So, for what it’s worth, there is some evidence to support my wacky theory. :Crazy:

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

This morning as I was headed to my porcelain furnished reading room I pulled a book from my bookshelf by Steven Hawking called, The Universe in a Nutshell. It’s a beautifully illustrated book that I highly recommend for anyone with a layperson’s interest in modern physics, like me. As a matter of fact, I’m such a layperson that I get bored with books that don’t have lots of pictures!

I skimmed through a couple of pages on Einstein and his theory of relativity and it reminded me that relativity ties in somewhat with what I was trying to describe in my previous post in this thread. According to relativity, each person’s experience of time and space is different from everyone else. In other words, time passes at a different rate for everyone, but the differences are normally so small that it appears to be the same for everyone. The rate that time passes is dependent on the speed with which an individual is moving. For example, consider two people of the same age where one takes a vacation in space travelling at near the speed of light for say, two weeks, then returns to earth to meet up with the other person who remained on earth the entire time. As it turns out, to the space traveler only two weeks will have passed by but to the person who stayed on earth perhaps 20 years will have come and gone. This proves that we each experience life in realities that are literally different. No one can share our reality, including God. We are the king and god of it. It is ours alone!

By the way, time distortion was first proven to be fact when an atomic clock (an extremely accurate electronic clock) was placed in two jet airplanes that few around the world in opposite directions. When they both returned their clocks were showing a different time. The occupants of each plane experienced a slightly different reality.

So, for what it’s worth, there is some evidence to support my wacky theory. :Crazy:

Jeff


I just realized that my last two posts are just begging for someone to respond that the throne I sit on in my reality must me made of porcelain. :cool: Well, I beat you to it!

Jeff

[bigeddy]

To Peter_Mary,

Yes I have read Integral Psychology. It is one of the Wilberishnesses that I base my current paradigm on. I guess in truth I would have to refer to Claire Grave's as the author of it (Wilber is the embellisher and extender). I love Wilber's stuff and Grave's work "Spiral Dynamics." Using that paradigm helps me understand a lot of what I see all around.

I used it this morning when reading the long thread involving the TBM infiltrator. It is fascinating to sit back and watch the drama of growth through the spirals take place.

In fact, there are a few of us who have started a "salon" (their word, not mine) called Integral Utah. See the website integralnext.org for a listing of salons around the world. The purpose is to promote an understanding and utilization of the whole integral philosophy. I find that it is a beneficial paradigm for me. It does not contain the aspect of divinity in its fullness for me, however. I agree with Jeff on the whole God issue. I am God. But then, so are you and you and you.

Ed

[infiltrator]

[QUOTE=b_hedshiz]I think that we are trained as Latter-Day Saints to think that either the church is true or no church is. So when we lose our faith in Mormonsim, it is hard to find another faith. We have learned why all the other belief systems must be wrong, so we will have to overcome that teaching to really participate in an organized religion after leaving the Mormon faith.

Infiltrator: I find it very interesting to see how easily ex-members accept another church which they know isn't true but don't care. Most people in other religions don't even know who started their religion nor do they care...but spent countless hours scrutinized old church history books trying to find something juicy about Joseph Smith. Joseph claimed to restore the church but all churches were started by someone who claimed to have fixed or reformed the church back into it's original state...isn't that just as much of a claim. Why would you accept that claim so easily and not Josephs. Anyone who sets themselves up to be a light to the world is claiming to be a prophet. Anyone teaching the masses in the name of Jesus is claiming to be a Prophet yet they try to say there are no prophets...I wish people would try and learn the true nature of what a living prophet is and see the parallels between Joseph and all other founders of the protestant denominations. To me the deceit is that they try to act like they're not pretending to be prophets, yet they take that role upon themselves. If they're not receiving revelation, then how have they reformed or fixed the church?

[infiltrator]

[QUOTE=b_hedshiz]I think that we are trained as Latter-Day Saints to think that either the church is true or no church is. So when we lose our faith in Mormonsim, it is hard to find another faith. We have learned why all the other belief systems must be wrong, so we will have to overcome that teaching to really participate in an organized religion after leaving the Mormon faith.

Infiltrator: I find it very interesting to see how easily ex-members accept another church which they know isn't true but don't care. Most people in other religions don't even know who started their religion nor do they care...but spent countless hours scrutinized old church history books trying to find something juicy about Joseph Smith. Joseph claimed to restore the church but all churches were started by someone who claimed to have fixed or reformed the church back into it's original state...isn't that just as much of a claim. Why would you accept that claim so easily and not Josephs. Anyone who sets themselves up to be a light to the world is claiming to be a prophet. Anyone teaching the masses in the name of Jesus is claiming to be a Prophet yet they try to say there are no prophets...I wish people would try and learn the true nature of what a living prophet is and see the parallels between Joseph and all other founders of the protestant denominations. To me the deceit is that they try to act like they're not pretending to be prophets, yet they take that role upon themselves. If they're not receiving revelation, then how have they reformed or fixed the church?

[miss taken]

To Peter_Mary,


I agree with Jeff on the whole God issue. I am God. But then, so are you and you and you.

Ed

Ed can you explain what you mean by this, It comes across as really arrogant, but I am sure you don't mean it that way, and the confusion is mixed up with semantics and a definition of the word 'god'.

Do you mean as Spong argues that we all have the 'divine' within us? What do you mean by God?
Please explain.

Thanks
Mary

[bigeddy]

I guess it does sound pretty arrogant if you are looking at it from a theistic paradigm. I certainly don't mean to be arrogant about it. I guess it would go like this:

In earlier (black/white, theistic) stages of development I subscribed to the whole momo thing and followed with all my heart the ethical system of that level. (Wilber talks about the importance of ethics in fostering growth). An important part of the ethic is compassion. As I more and more put myself in others' shoes and tried to understand life from behind their eyes less and less of the momo world made sense. As I did this my ability to be touched by the profound and mystical had developed (IMO) until it pushed me to vertical growth from stage to stage. Soon I knew that the only divine I knew (define divine as "of god") was in people, in life, in the "Is" and I began to see the incredible wisdom in the old taoist notion of being in harmony with the 10 thousand things.

So, to me, I guess, God is in the 10 thousand things and when I am in harmony with things as they truly are, then I feel it. Being in harmony tells me that you are divine, you are sacred; so am I. That is all.

Of this I bear testimony in the name of the 10 thousand things.

Ed

[Jeff_Ricks]

Ed can you explain what you mean by this, It comes across as really arrogant, but I am sure you don't mean it that way, and the confusion is mixed up with semantics and a definition of the word 'god'.

Do you mean as Spong argues that we all have the 'divine' within us? What do you mean by God?
Please explain.

Thanks
Mary

Mary, I don't know if you saw one of my posts from a few weeks ago where I tried to explain my concept of myself as God. You can click the link below to find it:

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?postid=650&highlight=finger#post650

The belief that we have the divine within us doesn't go far enough for me. It still suggests that we are separate from God; that we are here and although we have a little bit of God in us, God the Head Honcho and Big Kahoona is elsewhere. I don't buy that. I say that God and I and us IS (not are) one and the same. As I see it, WE are God together but not co-equal WITH God, we are co-equal AS god. I don’t think it's arrogant because it puts us all at an equal status. I include not just people, but everything; even mosquitoes and leeches. I like Ed's use of the word "divine." I am The Divine, and so is a mosquito.

This brings up an important point. If it’s arrogant for someone to consider themselves God and everyone as being at a lesser status (and I do think that is very arrogant, if not psychotic) then why isn’t it arrogant for God to do the same?

Jeff

[miss taken]

This brings up an important point. If it’s arrogant for someone to consider themselves God and everyone as being at a lesser status (and I do think that is very arrogant, if not psychotic) then why isn’t it arrogant for God to do the same?

Jeff

Good point Jeff, and I don't know how to answer it.
I don't totally subscribe to Spong, though I do agree with a lot of it.
I still see 'God' as superior to me, more intelligent than me, more loving than me, more knowledgable than me.
Whether that 'God' consists of a person or essence I would hate to say. I just don't know.

I think there is something about me that is eternal. That existed before I came here in flesh, and will continue to exist after my body dies. I am not ready to accept, on my path, that that is not the case, because I firmly believe it to be. This part of LDS doctrine rang true to me and I accept it in essence if not in the detail.

One of my friends is recommending Niche, but I don't really want to go there.

Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Good point Jeff, and I don't know how to answer it.
I don't totally subscribe to Spong, though I do agree with a lot of it.
I still see 'God' as superior to me, more intelligent than me, more loving than me, more knowledgable than me.
Whether that 'God' consists of a person or essence I would hate to say. I just don't know.

I think there is something about me that is eternal. That existed before I came here in flesh, and will continue to exist after my body dies. I am not ready to accept, on my path, that that is not the case, because I firmly believe it to be. This part of LDS doctrine rang true to me and I accept it in essence if not in the detail.

One of my friends is recommending Niche, but I don't really want to go there.

Mary

"I think there is something about me that is eternal."

I agree with you!! But why does accepting that require a belief in an "arrogant" God? I don't think it does. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm only trying to present another perspective. :)

Jeff

[miss taken]

"I think there is something about me that is eternal."

I agree with you!! But why does accepting that require a belief in an "arrogant" God? I don't think it does. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm only trying to present another perspective. :)

Jeff

Fair play. I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief that the 'God' that I believe in, is arrogant. Since love of a child is the deepest and purest love that I know. I do relate somewhat to the parental model of God. So I don't see (using my model of God) him/it/them, as arrogant. That would be antithesis to me of what God is all about.

I did find Spong's argument, using Freud, that humans invented God to cope with self-awareness and the trauma that brought, as slightly depressing. It's only one argument for why humans have always had religions.
Religions are also about power, stability, unification, cultural integration and assimillation.

Did we create God or did God create us? sheesh I don't know. But I know that I think !!!!!! I am biologically programmed to search for answers and to be curious.

Mary



Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Fair play. I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief that the 'God' that I believe in, is arrogant. Since love of a child is the deepest and purest love that I know. I do relate somewhat to the parental model of God. So I don't see (using my model of God) him/it/them, as arrogant. That would be antithesis to me of what God is all about.

I did find Spong's argument, using Freud, that humans invented God to cope with self-awareness and the trauma that brought, as slightly depressing. It's only one argument for why humans have always had religions.
Religions are also about power, stability, unification, cultural integration and assimillation.

Did we create God or did God create us? sheesh I don't know. But I know that I think !!!!!! I am biologically programmed to search for answers and to be curious.

Mary
Let me again say that I'm not trying to argue with you. I think you realize that my use of "arrogant" in quotes was intended as a summary of a point made in my previous post.

I agree with Spong in one aspect -- that we invented God. I also agree that we did so in part to cope with the trauma of our paradoxical condition -- being self aware but clueless as to how we got here what our purpose is. But I think our clueless state has a purpose in the same sense that hunger for food has a purpose. But if the innate "spiritual" hunger we feel causes us to only pacify that hunger instead of truly feeding it then it's purpose is frustrated, and I think that is the real tragedy of traditional belief in God. From my point of view, such a belief provides answers, yes, but I think only deceives me into thinking that those answers feed me, distracting me from pursuing further the need to be truly fed until I AM truly fed.

The paradox of life is to me like waking up in a large mansion. It has it’s good and has it’s bad but it’s an incredible mansion nonetheless. I have no idea how I got here, I only know that I am. The paradox begs for an answer, nagging at me in the periphery of my mind. There are others in the mansion too, but no one seems to honestly know why we are here. Then someone says, “I know why we’re here! I’ve talked with the owner.” The guy says that if I'll just believe what he’s telling me then he’ll fill me in on why I'm here and what the owner wants me to do. I only need to have faith.

Lacking a better answer, and being unwilling to just ignore the paradox, I put my trust in him. At least I no longer have to think about the whole strange situation anymore; I’ll let my new friend do the thinking for me. He tells me that the owner has a big reward for me when my time is up here, which sounds great! But in order to get that reward I’ll have to do everything he tells me. Like a sucker I buy into it.

Little by little he adds more and more crap to his list of things I need to do to keep the owner happy, and funny thing is they all seemed to be designed for the benefit of the guy, in particular the money that he extracts from me and his constant guilt trips designed to get me to convince others that they need to listen to the guy too. He tells me that I need to keep remembering that I’m really doing it for the owner and that I only need to buck up, keep the faith and endure to the end – my reward is waiting for me. I decide to keep the faith.

After a long while I notice that some of the things he tells me don’t add up so I start thinking and checking into his facts. Eventually I realize that the guy’s full of crap and I tell him, “To hell with this! Go find another sucker to do your bidding.”

This leaves me back at square one. Once again I haven’t a clue why I am here, but I take it upon myself to see if I can find out why and start looking around. As I’m exploring I start to notice some interesting, fascinating things about the place. Eventually I find myself becoming more interested in the exploring than in finding out exactly why I’m here… and a light turns on! I think I’m here to simply enjoy the place. Period! This because, (a) I AM here and can’t deny it, and (b) it IS a pretty interesting fun place to explore. Makes sense to me! I also realize that believing the other guy’s crap was keeping me from exploring and enjoying the place. If I would have kept dancing to the the other guy’s tune I would have probably wasted my entire time here. My time here would have all been in vain.

So I’m here to enjoy the place! I think we all are. That makes the most sense to me. So I'm thinking I'll take stock of the place, try to help fix what I can that’s broken (a lot of which is broken because of guys like the con-man), and get on with enjoying it. That's what makes sense to me. If our purpose here is to enjoy the place then maybe somehow I am (we collectively are) the owner -- at least the divine within me that we all hold in common is. In that sense I say I am God.

(Jeff steps off his soap box and shuts up)

[miss taken]

Let me again say that I'm not trying to argue with you. I think you realize that my use of "arrogant" in quotes was intended as a summary of a point made in my previous post.

I agree with Spong in one aspect -- that we invented God. I also agree that we did so in part to cope with the trauma of our paradoxical condition -- being self aware but clueless as to how we got here what our purpose is. But I think our clueless state has a purpose in the same sense that hunger for food has a purpose. But if the innate "spiritual" hunger we feel causes us to only pacify that hunger instead of truly feeding it then it's purpose is frustrated, and I think that is the real tragedy of traditional belief in God. From my point of view, such a belief provides answers, yes, but I think only deceives me into thinking that those answers feed me, distracting me from pursuing further the need to be truly fed until I AM truly fed.

The paradox of life is to me like waking up in a large mansion. It has it’s good and has it’s bad but it’s an incredible mansion nonetheless. I have no idea how I got here, I only know that I am. The paradox begs for an answer, nagging at me in the periphery of my mind. There are others in the mansion too, but no one seems to honestly know why we are here. Then someone says, “I know why we’re here! I’ve talked with the owner.” The guy says that if I'll just believe what he’s telling me then he’ll fill me in on why I'm here and what the owner wants me to do. I only need to have faith.

Lacking a better answer, and being unwilling to just ignore the paradox, I put my trust in him. At least I no longer have to think about the whole strange situation anymore; I’ll let my new friend do the thinking for me. He tells me that the owner has a big reward for me when my time is up here, which sounds great! But in order to get that reward I’ll have to do everything he tells me. Like a sucker I buy into it.

Little by little he adds more and more crap to his list of things I need to do to keep the owner happy, and funny thing is they all seemed to be designed for the benefit of the guy, in particular the money that he extracts from me and his constant guilt trips designed to get me to convince others that they need to listen to the guy too. He tells me that I need to keep remembering that I’m really doing it for the owner and that I only need to buck up, keep the faith and endure to the end – my reward is waiting for me. I decide to keep the faith.

After a long while I notice that some of the things he tells me don’t add up so I start thinking and checking into his facts. Eventually I realize that the guy’s full of crap and I tell him, “To hell with this! Go find another sucker to do your bidding.”

This leaves me back at square one. Once again I haven’t a clue why I am here, but I take it upon myself to see if I can find out why and start looking around. As I’m exploring I start to notice some interesting, fascinating things about the place. Eventually I find myself becoming more interested in the exploring than in finding out exactly why I’m here… and a light turns on! I think I’m here to simply enjoy the place. Period! This because, (a) I AM here and can’t deny it, and (b) it IS a pretty interesting fun place to explore. Makes sense to me! I also realize that believing the other guy’s crap was keeping me from exploring and enjoying the place. If I would have kept dancing to the the other guy’s tune I would have probably wasted my entire time here. My time here would have all been in vain.

So I’m here to enjoy the place! I think we all are. That makes the most sense to me. So I'm thinking I'll take stock of the place, try to help fix what I can that’s broken (a lot of which is broken because of guys like the con-man), and get on with enjoying it. That's what makes sense to me. If our purpose here is to enjoy the place then maybe somehow I am (we collectively are) the owner -- at least the divine within me that we all hold in common is. In that sense I say I am God.

(Jeff steps off his soap box and shuts up)

No don't shut up Jeff, I find your perspective interesting, and I don't think you are trying to argue the point at all, just stating your perspective as I do mine.
No problem!!!

What I don't like about Spong, is that he pretty much kills off God, and Jesus, or at least much of our interpretation of them, but he doesn't replace it with anything. He talks about love being a fundamental expression of the universe, and talks about a 'mystic god of the earth beneath which I think I just about get, but so far (and I am only in half way) he goes no further.

Apologies if the is disjointed, its nightime here and I am well tired.

One thing I appreciate about our western culture, is just how fragile it is. We have a system that allows us to work, to study, to enjoy. We have enough of our basic needs met that we can go on to 'higher things' so to speak.

But it is a fragile system all the same, and I think we do owe a lot of the good (as well as the bad) in our society to the influence of different religions. My best friend at college was Hindu, I found a lot of the stuff as she interpreted it to me, very similar and very refreshing, but it has also brought about a caste system that saw our birth as fixed and our status within it as unalterable.

How does an atheist, or post theist devise or adopt an ethical system? I know it is entirely possible, I just wonder what the founding principles of that system would be?

Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

How does an atheist, or post theist devise or adopt an ethical system? I know it is entirely possible, I just wonder what the founding principles of that system would be?

Mary

The founding principles of MY post-theist ethical system is the conclusion that we're all connected at a fundamental level. So if I harm someone it's the same as my hand shooting a bullet through my foot. Ultimately I'm only harming myself.

Jeff

[peter_mary]

The founding principles of MY post-theist ethical system is the conclusion that we're all connected at a fundamental level. So if I harm someone it's the same as my hand shooting a bullet through my foot. Ultimately I'm only harming myself.

Jeff

Well said. I would add that consequences of choices still have very real implications, regardless of whether you believe that God imposes those consequences, or whether you believe simply in natural law. Those consequences ultimately result in my own happiness or unhappiness. Skillful living produces growth, unskillful living produces degradation...both of myself and the world around me. I choose to seek skillful action not because I FEAR the consequences of living unskillfully, but because I YEARN for the consequences of living skillfully.

I heartily agree with the recognition that we are all "one" at a fundamental level (to include the entire universe, not merely it's human inhabitants.) Treating the universe and it's creatures with dignity and respect ultimately is how I treat myself.

Peter_Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Well said. I would add that consequences of choices still have very real implications, regardless of whether you believe that God imposes those consequences, or whether you believe simply in natural law. Those consequences ultimately result in my own happiness or unhappiness. Skillful living produces growth, unskillful living produces degradation...both of myself and the world around me. I choose to seek skillful action not because I FEAR the consequences of living unskillfully, but because I YEARN for the consequences of living skillfully.

I heartily agree with the recognition that we are all "one" at a fundamental level (to include the entire universe, not merely it's human inhabitants.) Treating the universe and it's creatures with dignity and respect ultimately is how I treat myself.

Peter_Mary
Paul,

I REALLY like your model for making ethical decisions. Is it skillfull or is it not? I don't need any more religion than that. Thanks for your insight.

Jeff

[templenamesarah]

How does an atheist, or post theist devise or adopt an ethical system? I know it is entirely possible, I just wonder what the founding principles of that system would be?

Mary

I humbly submit that this book is a good place to start:

Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. Wielenberg.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521607841/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-9-1%5Fbook%5F6894937%5F6/102-5385172-5099354

[Born Free]

I humbly submit that this book is a good place to start:

Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. Wielenberg.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521607841/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-9-1%5Fbook%5F6894937%5F6/102-5385172-5099354
templenamesarah,

I went and had a look at the reviews on this book, and it does look good. It seems to address full-on the assumption that a "Godless" world will automatically be a "virtueless" world. Of course many philosophers have argued that virtue grounded in compulsion or punishments and rewards, is not very virtuous at all.

Whilst you have pointed us at the book, you have stated nothing of your personal experience with it. What really impressed you about it? I would be interested to hear.

On this broader issue, for me a "post-external morality" morality is built upon empathy and self knowledge. In short the Golden Rule. Enlightened self-interest might be anotehr description.

I figure I should treat others as I would like to be treated. That stand builds upon a certain level of self knowledge, and ease with uncertainity, so while I strive for objective consistency in the rules or Law of the community in which I reside, I also know that rules cannot ever be expected to cover all eventualities.

I believe that morality is principle rather than rule-based. I concur with Sir Collin Chapman's quote "Rules are made for the obedience of fools and the interpretation of wise men".

To my mind, what differentiates the Golden Rule from other systems is that it has as a foundation my connectin to all men/women. Therefore I cannot sit comfortably and ignore someone elses abuse, without imagining that how I would feel if that was done to me.

Gone is the tribal mindset, of seeing my tribe as human, and all others as subhuman. I heard part of a radio interview just last week with a man involved in a global human gene mapping project. He stated that the work has produced some surprising benefits. It has shown that some peoples who have been sworn enemies for many generations, have in fact nearly identical in DNA, so in the not too distant past, shared a common ancestor. Once this fact is know, they have observed cases where intergroup tensions have dissolved.

So I believe there is a fabulous source of material to help formulate ones Post-Mo morality. And once one starts to discover that world, you come to appreciate how superficial is the much touted morality of many religions.

I do want to come back to Mary's remark re Spong later, as I think I have a different take on that to Mary, whose wisdom and knowledge I normally happily fall down before in awe and respect! :)

Daryl

[peter_mary]

I humbly submit that this book is a good place to start:

Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. Wielenberg.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521607841/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-9-1%5Fbook%5F6894937%5F6/102-5385172-5099354


Thanks for the suggestion! I read the reviews...sounds like a great place to start if someone is pondering the morality of post-theism (man, I LOVE that term! :) )

I have for a long time assumed that the notion that the absence of God would automatically reduce civilization to chaos was actually a paradigm driven by none other than, Ta-da! the religiously minded! That fear of utter anarchy and a "catch-as-catch-can" society is in large part what keeps people in line, paying their money and asking forgiveness of whichever institution they choose to grant their allegience.

But what if that's a faulty paradigm? What if we might actually be MORE morally minded, MORE socially responsible, MORE ecologically minded, in the absence of a God paradigm? I'm inclined to think it COULD happen. Not that it necessarily WOULD, but that it COULD. I think if people really understood that "this is all you get," that we'd probably spend it more wisely, and live more richly (not materialistically, but "rich" as in "deeply rewarding.") I know many people, and the list is growing, who have questioned the very existence of God, and in so doing, have found themselves more loving than ever...why? I suppose it is because they find that there is no reliance on God...only on one another. Our strength then comes from on our ability to get along with each other, not on knowing the "right rules and rituals" that are required by some mighty "Other."

If you didn't believe that the world was about to end in a fiery "Second Coming," you might take better care of the earth, because you realize that we either make it last, or we kill ourselves.

If you didn't believe that there was some God requiring your adoration and adherence to His/Her particular set of rules, then you might not be so inclined to hate everyone who believes differently. We would all agree that there is but this one planet, with these few billion people, all relying only on one another in this one, vast universe, and not be hung up on which are the right rituals to get you past the sentinals on your way to heaven ;) .

If you didn't believe that making a mistake was "wicked", you might not live in such deep denial regarding the mistakes you do make. You could deal with them openly, seeking mentors and teachers to help you live more skillfully rather than hiding from the pious judges who would condemn your unskillful choices as evil.

If you didn't believe it was necessary for a God to die for your salvation, you might not be so inclined to kill on His behalf.

Anyway, those are just a few "Musings of a Wondering Soul."

Peter_Mary

[templenamesarah]

templenamesarah,
Whilst you have pointed us at the book, you have stated nothing of your personal experience with it. What really impressed you about it? I would be interested to hear.

On this broader issue, for me a "post-external morality" morality is built upon empathy and self knowledge. In short the Golden Rule. Enlightened self-interest might be anotehr description.

Daryl

Daryl, I am still reading that particular book, and I want to withhold my full review thereof until I am finished reading it. Hardly a page goes by that I don't want to grab my highlighter and ink away!

I have struggled philosophically with the idea of having morality or goodness in a world not governed by a benevolent God.

I'm afraid I am not nearly so eloquent as most of you here on this board, but I will do my best:

Ethics and morality derive from our need and desire to live in a civilized society. I hope and expect others to behave toward me and mine in a civilized fashion. I behave in a civilized fashion to contribute to this society. Although living as barbarians might be fun for a day or two, I much prefer a more genteel lifestyle. In this fashion, I believe that whatever I do to contribute to the betterment of my community will come back to me, not through divine intervention, but through an overall improved society. So, I agree that "enlightened self interest" is the primary motivator. (I certainly believe I am more enlightened now, in my apostacy, than I ever was as a Mo.)

[free thinker]

Ethics and morality derive from our need and desire to live in a civilized society. I hope and expect others to behave toward me and mine in a civilized fashion. I behave in a civilized fashion to contribute to this society. Although living as barbarians might be fun for a day or two, I much prefer a more genteel lifestyle. In this fashion, I believe that whatever I do to contribute to the betterment of my community will come back to me, not through divine intervention, but through an overall improved society. So, I agree that "enlightened self interest" is the primary motivator. (I certainly believe I am more enlightened now, in my apostacy, than I ever was as a Mo.)

Since I will probably be responding to you from time to time, I am going to shorten your moniker to TNS. Hope you dont mind! And, If you like having your moniker shortened, you can call anytime!! :D

I thought what you wrote was interesting and well stated. I agree with your philosphy.

Perhaps god is more of a unifying force, or THE GROUND OF ALL BEING that Spong writes about. All around us, in us, and through us. The force of life! This is what I feel and think about god presently!!

Free Thinker
__________________

[miss taken]

Daryl, I am still reading that particular book, and I want to withhold my full review thereof until I am finished reading it. Hardly a page goes by that I don't want to grab my highlighter and ink away!

I have struggled philosophically with the idea of having morality or goodness in a world not governed by a benevolent God.

I'm afraid I am not nearly so eloquent as most of you here on this board, but I will do my best:

Ethics and morality derive from our need and desire to live in a civilized society. I hope and expect others to behave toward me and mine in a civilized fashion. I behave in a civilized fashion to contribute to this society. Although living as barbarians might be fun for a day or two, I much prefer a more genteel lifestyle. In this fashion, I believe that whatever I do to contribute to the betterment of my community will come back to me, not through divine intervention, but through an overall improved society. So, I agree that "enlightened self interest" is the primary motivator. (I certainly believe I am more enlightened now, in my apostacy, than I ever was as a Mo.)


TNS, I think you are great, and thankyou for your insights and also quotes, I am very interested in what you have to say. I am working today with kids, but will check out the book tonight!!! This is a real growing time for me, so thanks all.

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mary

[templenamesarah]

[U]Since I will probably be responding to you from time to time, I am going to shorten your moniker to TNS. Hope you dont mind! And, If you like having your moniker shortened, you can call anytime!! :D

I thought what you wrote was interesting and well stated. I agree with your philosphy.

Perhaps god is more of a unifying force, or THE GROUND OF ALL BEING that Spong writes about. All around us, in us, and through us. The force of life! This is what I feel and think about god presently!!

Free Thinker
__________________

Ooooo, I love it when you shorten my moniker! It tickles! Seriously, call me whatever floats your boat. IRL I go by Nancy, but I will answer to just about anything. ;)

Also, thank you for your supportive words. I am quickly growing to love this online community. FreeThinker, I am also somewhat Ayn Rand-ian in my life philosophy; you're not the only one.

[templenamesarah]

TNS, I think you are great, and thankyou for your insights and also quotes, I am very interested in what you have to say. I am working today with kids, but will check out the book tonight!!! This is a real growing time for me, so thanks all.

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mary

Cheers, Mary! :::clink::: Thank you.

And just to keep this thread at least nominally on-topic, I will say that I don't remember EVER hearing any church person say with sincerity that he was very interested in what I have to say, or comment positively on my insightfulness. So there! ;)

[bigeddy]

I will throw one out that I have thought about for years and about which I have collected the words of people I respect.

It occurred to me years ago that following eros led me to want, truly hunger for, something larger, more inclusive, even more holy. I noticed that when my eros was untrammelled by the shame others placed upon it, my moments of greatest ecstasy produced not a hardened selfish heart but an expanded more aware sense of who I am and who you are. I wanted at those moments to be the most excellent me I could be. It seemed strange to me that so many wanted to interpret or force those moments to be interpreted as cheap and tawdry. I realized that following that eros led to the ethos, the full ethos, rich in pathos and all the juicy passions that make life wonderful and highly connected.

When so connected it is not possible to act counter to what is a blessing to myself and others (what blesses me blesses others because we are so connected). This led right to an ethic of behavior, not based on rules, or even thought, but based on eros--the drive of my heart juice.

Then, realizing this it hit me that my growing up in the church was a main reason I did not trust my own eros--The very thing that led to my best ethic. The church's need to teach me to not trust myself (as every authoritarian system does--teach its adherants not to trust themselves, or why would they need us "authorities (general or otherwise)) was what destroyed true ethics!!!

I have asked myself for years what is the essence of Boyd's bullshit? Where does such a man miss the boat? Where along his path does he stop growing along a true and valuable path and why?

I heard a Ken Wilber speech the other day and he was saying all this about ethics and eros. He stated that what eros drives us toward is true compassion. To try to place the joy and love in ourselves into another person and to try to take their pain and sorrow onto us. He believes that when we do this it brings to mind, consciousness and awareness the complexities of living and pushes us to do the vertical growing. It hit me that in all his rule keeping and command obeying, perhaps Boyd forgot to follow his eros. By denying his eros (and denigrating his little factories) he lost sight of what true compassion is all about and failed to do any vertical growing. Maybe, he cares more about rules, power and the trappings of GAism than he does about people and that this resulted from lack of eros, or not trusting eros.

I guess the most important conclusion in all of this, for me, is that ethics descends directly from eros. If I am taught to mistrust, deny and villify eros, I lose ethics; true ethics, and I am left with just obedience to rules. What a dry, hurtful life (hmmm, sound like the life I had in momoland).

Ed

[Jeff_Ricks]

How does an atheist, or post theist devise or adopt an ethical system? I know it is entirely possible, I just wonder what the founding principles of that system would be?

Mary

Today my son sent me this quote. Apparently Nate sent it to him:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

- Albert Einstein, in Time Magazine, 9 November 1930

Al you're a genius!

Jeff

[miss taken]

Today my son sent me this quote. Apparently Nate sent it to him:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

- Albert Einstein, in Time Magazine, 9 November 1930

Al you're a genius!

Jeff

I like this Jeff, but as LDS and maybe if I had been mainstream christian, I have never subscribed to the idea of 'fear of punishment and hope of reward'. It sounds infantile to me, and how you would treat your 6 year old, not an adult. I was never in the church because of hope of reward, but I must say it did instil in me an unrational fear of punishment.

Does christianity have to be as Einstein suggests, surely we can overcome that.

Mary

[peter_mary]

I like this Jeff, but as LDS and maybe if I had been mainstream christian, I have never subscribed to the idea of 'fear of punishment and hope of reward'. It sounds infantile to me, and how you would treat your 6 year old, not an adult. I was never in the church because of hope of reward, but I must say it did instil in me an unrational fear of punishment.

Does christianity have to be as Einstein suggests, surely we can overcome that.

Mary

Really? You're not just posturing here? :p

Man, I lived in constant fear that I wasn't good enough. I was convinced my wife was going to have to find a worthy man in the Celestial Kingdom to be sealed to, 'cause I knew I wasn't likely to make it. But by golly I was gonna try! I lived in fear for the punishment that would be laid at my feet if any of my children went astray; I lived in fear of the Second Coming if I didn't get my act together; I lived in fear of the judgement from my leaders if I didn't get to the temple, or get my Home Teaching done... Criminy, I ran around in fear CONSTANTLY! Imagine the relief when I dropped that fear, and started living my friggin' life! :Crazy:

How you managed to avoid that is a mystery to me!

Peter_Mary

[miss taken]

Really? You're not just posturing here? :p

Man, I lived in constant fear that I wasn't good enough. I was convinced my wife was going to have to find a worthy man in the Celestial Kingdom to be sealed to, 'cause I knew I wasn't likely to make it. But by golly I was gonna try! I lived in fear for the punishment that would be laid at my feet if any of my children went astray; I lived in fear of the Second Coming if I didn't get my act together; I lived in fear of the judgement from my leaders if I didn't get to the temple, or get my Home Teaching done... Criminy, I ran around in fear CONSTANTLY! Imagine the relief when I dropped that fear, and started living my friggin' life! :Crazy:

How you managed to avoid that is a mystery to me!

Peter_Mary

Um...what does posturing mean???? (I am serious!!!)
Honestly, I never got the reward thing.. I never ever got it. If I really think about it, the punishment thing kind of scared me, but it was institutionalised thinking and not from within.

When I was in the club, I kept the rules of the club, does that make any sense. I didn't keep them all, and I never ever felt good enough. But isn't that a different issue. You are talking about punishing yourself, I am talking about God either punishing or rewarding us.


ANyways!!

My dad got cancer and I miscarried, is that punishment or just life. Same in the church. Bad things happen to people and good things happen to people. I hated the mentality that said oh whatsisname got that because he is being blessed by god. I never bought into that blessing/punishment thing. Life just is. (am I am SURE I have heard that from you Paul!!!! :) )


Mary

[peter_mary]

Um...what does posturing mean???? (I am serious!!!)


pos-tur-ing: verb 1) to strike a pose for effect; POSE: 2) to assume an artificial or pretended attitude.

(and of course, I was only being a smart-aleck... :D )

I never bought into that blessing/punishment thing. Life just is. (and I am SURE I have heard that from you Paul!!!! :) )

Mary

Oh, you'll hear me say that over and over and over again...NOW! :) Back then, I was operating under a WAY different paradigm. I'm not only a lot more healthy now, but I'm also a lot more fun to be around! (Ask my kids...but not in my presence...I don't want to subject myself to their answers! :eek: )

Peter_Mary

[miss taken]

pos-tur-ing: verb 1) to strike a pose for effect; POSE: 2) to assume an artificial or pretended attitude.

(and of course, I was only being a smart-aleck... :D )



Oh, you'll hear me say that over and over and over again...NOW! :) Back then, I was operating under a WAY different paradigm. I'm not only a lot more healthy now, but I'm also a lot more fun to be around! (Ask my kids...but not in my presence...I don't want to subject myself to their answers! :eek: )

Peter_Mary

Dah! You just posted your reply while I was editing my diatribe!!!!!
I never was married or had children in the church...maybe that makes a difference. Maybe I was always a bit of a fence sitter, even though I kept all the rules. (most of the time :rolleyes: )
Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Hi Jeff, I like post-theist, I'll remember that one!!!

Today I purchased Spong's book A Christianity for a New World. I've thumbed through it enough while at Borders to realize that he uses the term, post-theist, quite liberally. He considers himself a post-theist.

Damn! I thought I invented it. :cool:

Jeff

[miss taken]

Today I purchased Spong's book A Christianity for a New World. I've thumbed through it enough while at Borders to realize that he uses the term, post-theist, quite liberally. He considers himself a post-theist.

Damn! I thought I invented it. :cool:

Jeff

Great (or similar!!!!) minds think alike Jeff!!!
I think Spong and Palmer have a lot in common, they both kind of tear down the literalism of religion, and... I havn't finished either book to understand just how they both end up standing with the whole 'religion' issue.!!!

[noodle]

Today I purchased Spong's book A Christianity for a New World. I've thumbed through it enough while at Borders to realize that he uses the term, post-theist, quite liberally. He considers himself a post-theist.

Damn! I thought I invented it. :cool:

Jeff

Would this book be appropriate for a TBM son? Wonder if it would offend him?

[Jeff_Ricks]

Would this book be appropriate for a TBM son? Wonder if it would offend him?

Any person that believes in any form of theism including Mormonism would probably be offended by the book. I'd recommend the book for any former theist who is still compelled to seek a spiritual path. Although post-theism and spirtuality appear to be on opposite ends of a spectrum, Spong shows how that doesn't have to be the case.

I hope that answers your question. :)

Jeff

P.S. I'm planning to buy a copy for my Mom. She left Mormonism along with my twin sister a few years after I did. Mom still holds on to theism but frequently asks about my views as a post-theist, so I think she might like the book.

[Born Free]

Would this book be appropriate for a TBM son? Wonder if it would offend him?

I first heard Spong interviewed on ABC Radio National here (Australia) about 6 years ago. I could not get out of my car when I arrived at my destination because the interview had not finished.

This was one of few 'Christian' thinkers, and authors whose take on Christianity, I did not find intellectually insulting.

As a result, I bought WCMCoD. I loved it, and wished such a book had been available when I was questioning in my early 20s.

I have since heard Spong in person on two occasions here in Australia (and have audio copies of his addresses on both occasions).

The dominant impression I have of him is that he mounts very solid arguments in a very compassionate human way, that makes ducking his direction near impossible. Yet, in all that, I have never experienced him as brutal, insensitive, or smart-arsed in any manner.

I suspect some people feel some panic as they sense a particular fantasy of God, religion and the Meaning of Life falls away, and for a period some might express that as anger at Spong. Most (particulary the more intelligent), I find, in short order come to realise that he destroyed nothing of substance that really existed anyway, so they let go of the illusion and quickly move on to a higher level of functioning. It becomes a bit like - do I lose sleep over the demise of the belief in Santa?

The best way to determine the books compatibility for your son is to buy or borrow a copy from a library, read a few chapters, then, knowing your son and his level of thought, and rationality, make your own judgement call.

I get his weekly eNewsletter, and can forward some samples, if you would like to get a feel for his level and tone of argument. If that has appeal, PM me your email address.

Daryl

[miss taken]

I suspect some people feel some panic as they sense a particular fantasy of God, religion and the Meaning of Life falls away, and for a period some might express that as anger at Spong. Most (particulary the more intelligent), I find, in short order come to realise that he destroyed nothing of substance that really existed anyway, so they let go of the illusion and quickly move on to a higher level of functioning. It becomes a bit like - do I lose sleep over the demise of the belief in Santa?


Daryl

Daryl, I hope you don't mind, but I kind of take exception to the part marked in bold. I like Spong. A lot of what he writes (so far) resonates with me deeply.
I agree with a lot of what he says. But not everything. His argument on NT gospels for instance assumes that we know exactly the order in which the gospels were written. We don't. Like everyone, he interprets the evidence and draws his own conclusions.

When you make a statement like the one above, it reminds me of LDS members who argue, oh if she/he had the SPIRIT it would be telling them. So they base their argument on SPIRIT rather than intelligence. A lot of very intelligent people believe in religions, a lot of very intelligent people believe in the LDS church, and a lot of very intelligent people don't.

Hope you understand what I am trying to get at!
Mary

[Born Free]

Daryl, I hope you don't mind, but I kind of take exception to the part marked in bold. I like Spong. A lot of what he writes (so far) resonates with me deeply.
I agree with a lot of what he says. But not everything. His argument on NT gospels for instance assumes that we know exactly the order in which the gospels were written. We don't. Like everyone, he interprets the evidence and draws his own conclusions.

When you make a statement like the one above, it reminds me of LDS members who argue, oh if she/he had the SPIRIT it would be telling them. So they base their argument on SPIRIT rather than intelligence. A lot of very intelligent people believe in religions, a lot of very intelligent people believe in the LDS church, and a lot of very intelligent people don't.

Hope you understand what I am trying to get at!
Mary
Mary,

I appreciate your frank feedback regarding that remark.

At the time I put fingers to keyboard I baulked for a moment, then decided to leave it there. I know that was not a very PC statement. Trouble is I prefer meaningful dialogue to PC. Let me step into another realm to illustrate my point.

Research shows that people with higher education have a broader range of sexual expression. Is this a function of education or of the people attracted to learning, and the impact of new ideas on their sexuality? Who, for instance is more comfortable with gays.... rednecks or the educated?

Logic would suggest that the ability to analyse belief systems leads to the shedding of some notions that appear based in fear, and ignorance.

I believe that research of church attendance and beliefs would show a correlation between intelligence levels and attraction to various types of belief. The attendance at a fundamentalist religion is markedly different to that at a Unitarian gathering, for instance.

How do you explain that?

I have no doubt there are exceptions to that.

I do appreciate that my statement has the potential to sound like a cheap putdown. That is not where I was coming from.

BTW, I do not agree 100% with Spong either. Do I find value in being exposed to his opinions? Most certainly!

My point is that people who lash out when anxious if they feel a precious belief system is under threat, or resort calmy to cliches, have a very limited capacity to wrestle with new ideas in their area of 'conviction'.

My warning was along the lines that if mamajama's son shares some of her openmindedness and expansiveness, then I suspect that he might enjoy Spong, even if stretched a bit, but that ultimately she knows him better than I do.

If his reading is designed to reinforce his existing beliefs, then he might have a more problematic response.

So I am left with the problem that I observe that there is a general correlation between demonstrable intelligence and the rejection of fundamentalism religions. Are there exceptions? I am sure there are.

So I how do I make that point without risking offence, which is far from my intent?

And just so there is no confusion, I greatly appreciate that this forum attracts and continues to engage people, like you, who can speak of their discomfort with comfort :rolleyes: , and do so with confidence and assertiveness. :p

Daryl

[aether]

It's my own humble opinion that any religious organization has huge potential for danger, especially when it gets as expansive as the church is. Religions should focus on the group as a whole, not on individual people. Instructing a generally good, righteous way to live is helpful, while trying to bend 10 million people (or however many there are) to one exact way of life is going to be destructive.

That being said, I also believe strongly in the spirituality of people, but I think that it should be entirely a personal and individual thing. The best members of the Mormon church that I've ever met are the ones who really have personalized their own faith. They don't always follow all the rules, but it's the personal love and devotion to a god that really counts.

The time where I thought that if the church wasn't true, then God didn't exist, was very short. It didn't seem reasonable to me to think that way. I have a strong belief in God now, although it's very altered from what it was when I was 12 years old. I believe that Jesus existed, but not as a son of God, and I don't believe that God directly interferes with the physical world that we see around us. That's why I have never blamed God for natural disasters or anything like that.

I agree, it is rather risky to believe in something new, once I have felt betrayed by a faith I used to trust, but for me to deny myself any sort of spiritual experiences just because I don't believe the church is true, makes me feel artificial and childish.

[miss taken]

Mary,

I appreciate your frank feedback regarding that remark.

At the time I put fingers to keyboard I baulked for a moment, then decided to leave it there. I know that was not a very PC statement. Trouble is I prefer meaningful dialogue to PC. Let me step into another realm to illustrate my point.

Research shows that people with higher education have a broader range of sexual expression. Is this a function of education or of the people attracted to learning, and the impact of new ideas on their sexuality? Who, for instance is more comfortable with gays.... rednecks or the educated?

Logic would suggest that the ability to analyse belief systems leads to the shedding of some notions that appear based in fear, and ignorance.

I believe that research of church attendance and beliefs would show a correlation between intelligence levels and attraction to various types of belief. The attendance at a fundamentalist religion is markedly different to that at a Unitarian gathering, for instance.

How do you explain that?

I have no doubt there are exceptions to that.

I do appreciate that my statement has the potential to sound like a cheap putdown. That is not where I was coming from.

BTW, I do not agree 100% with Spong either. Do I find value in being exposed to his opinions? Most certainly!

My point is that people who lash out when anxious if they feel a precious belief system is under threat, or resort calmy to cliches, have a very limited capacity to wrestle with new ideas in their area of 'conviction'.

My warning was along the lines that if mamajama's son shares some of her openmindedness and expansiveness, then I suspect that he might enjoy Spong, even if stretched a bit, but that ultimately she knows him better than I do.

If his reading is designed to reinforce his existing beliefs, then he might have a more problematic response.

So I am left with the problem that I observe that there is a general correlation between demonstrable intelligence and the rejection of fundamentalism religions. Are there exceptions? I am sure there are.

So I how do I make that point without risking offence, which is far from my intent?

And just so there is no confusion, I greatly appreciate that this forum attracts and continues to engage people, like you, who can speak of their discomfort with comfort :rolleyes: , and do so with confidence and assertiveness. :p

Daryl


Thanks Daryl for the explanation. Sounds good to me! :o
Mary

[miss taken]

It's my own humble opinion that any religious organization has huge potential for danger, especially when it gets as expansive as the church is. Religions should focus on the group as a whole, not on individual people. Instructing a generally good, righteous way to live is helpful, while trying to bend 10 million people (or however many there are) to one exact way of life is going to be destructive.

That being said, I also believe strongly in the spirituality of people, but I think that it should be entirely a personal and individual thing. The best members of the Mormon church that I've ever met are the ones who really have personalized their own faith. They don't always follow all the rules, but it's the personal love and devotion to a god that really counts.

The time where I thought that if the church wasn't true, then God didn't exist, was very short. It didn't seem reasonable to me to think that way. I have a strong belief in God now, although it's very altered from what it was when I was 12 years old. I believe that Jesus existed, but not as a son of God, and I don't believe that God directly interferes with the physical world that we see around us. That's why I have never blamed God for natural disasters or anything like that.

I agree, it is rather risky to believe in something new, once I have felt betrayed by a faith I used to trust, but for me to deny myself any sort of spiritual experiences just because I don't believe the church is true, makes me feel artificial and childish.

I can totally relate to this Aether! THanks.