After studying various religious movements, I have found a pattern. When the movement begins, all of the members are converts. They strongly believe in the ideas put forth. The founder is alive and well, and everyone has a figurehead to look to. When the founder dies, doesn't matter how, there is a bit of chaos. People are not sure who to follow now. (they are so used to following, it doesn't occur to them that they maybe shouldn't have a leader).
Once that is resolved, the group (or groups) remaining settle happily in their new groove. They rely heavily on the founder's teachings and so the new leaders have a lot less weight. The people stay very close to at least the spirit of the original movement, or at least one of the resulting groups do. But, here comes the shaft. All of these people have children. Unless this is a universal movement where every single person feels spiritually uplifted and edified by it (hint, I don't think this has ever existed), there are going to be some children who do not fit in with the regime. There are a few different types, although it partially depends on the type of group. One set might just up and leave. Another may be an apathetic bunch, who wish to please, and so they stay on, but don't really have any true conviction about their beliefs. Another group may be angered by what is taught and will either stay in and try and destroy it, or leave and try and destroy it.
One last group. The size of this group depends on the overall appeal the movement has on the average person. These people are the same type of person as their parents. They would have converted to this belief if they had not been born to it. If the new religion is at all strange or different or shocking to the average person, this group will be fairly small. The make up of the group starts as 90% or so people who really believe in what they are doing. Once their children grow up, it changes to 80% or so (assuming that this is a strange religion where few (25%) of the children fall into the true believer status and each family has 3 children or so ... and it's an island so that no one can leave). The original adults are still around, so the overall feel of the group is very similar, for now. The next generation is born, grows up and starts to have children. It has been 40 years since the founder died and the group was out on its own. Many of the original members are dead, the ones who were 20 when the founder died, are now 60. From my pseudo-math I get about 40% true believers.
Once all of the original members are gone (about 80 years), the false percentages are gone and it falls to almost exactly the percentage of people that the religion truly appeals to. In this case 25%. Interestingly, this also corresponds to the time when those who have never met the founder of the religion are in charge. So, what does this mean? It means that after 80 years the religion in in the hands of those who do not care about the beliefs of the founders.
Majority rules, even when it's not an official democracy. By forcing/encouraging their children to stay in their religion, it was killed. The flavor of the religion changes at this point, becoming more acceptable to that part of the population that is more numerous. The ones who stayed in the religion because they didn't want to bother finding something else. Now that the 25% of true believers are longer the target for this group, it changes into what the majority needs, as it should. But that 25% for whom the religion was founded are out in the cold with nowhere to go.
What do you think happens? They go off and join the crowds of non-affiliated members of society. A couple of them go off and start their own religion, and in time one of them will gain some ground and it will take off, and all of the people drawn to that idea will join. Then they will have children who will be forced (through brainwashing) to join as well, and the cycle will begin again.
Showing posts with label Mormonism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mormonism. Show all posts
The Afterlife
This subject has imposed itself on me quite a few time this last month. I am beginning to feel that, yes, what we do in this life affects where we will go in the next, but there are millions of possibilities instead of two, three or even seven. Each possible afterlife is merely a gathering of like souls. So, if you are a miser, you will go to a place filled with misers. No one will help you out, but you can save to your heart's delight. If you spent your life serving others, you will go somewhere with others who live to serve. Imagine what that would be like. It could either be very satisfying, or it could be incredibly annoying. But, for the most part, we are not quite so archetypal as all that! Think of it as being gathered up with all of your possible soul mates - all in one place! You may not be exactly the same, but everyone there connects with you - they are all the people who you admire, and who in turn admire you. That isn't to say that everyone who falls into that category in this life will go to the same place - there are choices made that can kick them into another sphere, murder would be a good example.
Let's take Tolkien for an example. Not all (or even most) of his fans would be in the same place as he. But other linguists, historians, etc would - this is a place of equals!
'Getting' to live with who you are is the best punishment/reward I can think of. And, as a bonus, I don't see a lot in the scriptures that specifically contradict this notion.
Let's take Tolkien for an example. Not all (or even most) of his fans would be in the same place as he. But other linguists, historians, etc would - this is a place of equals!
'Getting' to live with who you are is the best punishment/reward I can think of. And, as a bonus, I don't see a lot in the scriptures that specifically contradict this notion.
Justice and Mercy in Mormonism
There are quite a few strange things about mormon doctrines. One common idea is that Mercy is utterly opposed to Justice and visa versa. Let me wander down the isles of the thought processes that have led us there.
The GOD of the old testament seems harsh, brutal, quick to dish out punishment, and slow to let transgressions go without some recompense. The Law of Torah is filled with death penalties for trivial crimes (or so they seem to us). We do not like to think of God in this light, as we believe that our souls and our futures are in his hands. Along comes Jesus! From the new testament we can see that he is loving, forgiving and fair. Whew! we know we can trust this guy not to kill us for stepping out of line.
In traditional christian thought, Jesus and the Father are one being, so what Jesus is, so is the Father, and we come up with ways to explain away the actions of the old testament god. The mormons, along with other modern arians, did not believe in the traditional trinity, but considered that the members of the godhead were all separate beings. Well, this brought up the idea of the vengeful old testament god again. If there was no new testament Jesus side to god himself, new explanations would have to be found, or the old testament would need to be downplayed (as many modern christian denominations do).
Now, I'm not sure when the Justice vs Mercy doctrine became very popular in mormonism, I'll have to do some research, but, perhaps it stemmed from these early days of the church. The basic premises of the idea is that God represents JUSTICE! perfect justice that must be satisfied at all costs! and Jesus represents MERCY! perfect mercy that could forgive those who were killing him as it was being done. When we sin, God demands that justice be served, thrusting us out into the darkness if we are the least bit imperfect - and then, Jesus saves us with his mercy, by forgiving us and taking on our sins for himself. How this works exactly is up for debate. When we are through with this history lesson, I want to show why this was a false idea in all of its incarnations.
In the very early 1900s, the mormons still believed that god the father was Jehovah or LORD of the old testament, and Jesus was a separate person who played a role as explained above. The modern era was approaching, many converts were joining the church, and as a result, many of the members of the church were becoming uncomfortable with the idea of this GOD, personally untempered by a kinder half.
Luckily for them (or not, as your point of view may be), Talmage came along and introduced what I like to call reformed trinitarianism. Basically, the old testament God, Jehovah, really was Jesus - just pretending. Besides all of the weird stuff that does to your brain (if you were brought up to be a non-trinitarian) like Jesus talking about himself in third person; Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses were really talking to Jesus, not the father; and apparently you prayed to Jesus before he came and the Father after etc., it neatly solved the current moral dilemma by placing the mormon godhead in the same murky water as the rest of christianity. Even though this didn't really solve the problem, it DID in so many people's minds, that it didn't really matter one way or the other.
In this doctrinal setting (Jesus is Jehovah), the idea of Justice vs Mercy would not have become as important since both roles were being played by the same person anyway (thus the internal cohesion (or confusion, as I like to think of it as) of the two would have been emphasized rather than the separateness).
Now for the fun part! How is this idea fundamentally flawed?
First off, separating these two attributes between the pair of them implies that God cannot forgive, or is incapable of mercy. Many would tend to agree with this - he represents the LAW, and it would be unbefitting of him to bend it for us (as many a tale about kings exemplifies). But, the other side to this would be that Jesus cannot exhibit justice, or met out retribution. Before you say 'of course he does not judge us - he loves us all unconditionally', remember his words to the scribes and pharisees, remember how he scourged the temple of the money changers, how he scorched the fruitless fig tree. These are not the actions of a man without justice. The thing that Jesus did, that I think was remarkable, was he knew when people were selfish or greedy or abusive, and called them on it - even if it was an acceptable practice for the day. He also associated himself with, and forgave, those that society had cast out. In short, he could see through social and cultural labels down into the human soul.
I would also like to point out that God in the old testament isn't as unmerciful as many think. Just peruse through the search result for forgive in the old testament. As an example (as I am running out of time)
The GOD of the old testament seems harsh, brutal, quick to dish out punishment, and slow to let transgressions go without some recompense. The Law of Torah is filled with death penalties for trivial crimes (or so they seem to us). We do not like to think of God in this light, as we believe that our souls and our futures are in his hands. Along comes Jesus! From the new testament we can see that he is loving, forgiving and fair. Whew! we know we can trust this guy not to kill us for stepping out of line.
In traditional christian thought, Jesus and the Father are one being, so what Jesus is, so is the Father, and we come up with ways to explain away the actions of the old testament god. The mormons, along with other modern arians, did not believe in the traditional trinity, but considered that the members of the godhead were all separate beings. Well, this brought up the idea of the vengeful old testament god again. If there was no new testament Jesus side to god himself, new explanations would have to be found, or the old testament would need to be downplayed (as many modern christian denominations do).
Now, I'm not sure when the Justice vs Mercy doctrine became very popular in mormonism, I'll have to do some research, but, perhaps it stemmed from these early days of the church. The basic premises of the idea is that God represents JUSTICE! perfect justice that must be satisfied at all costs! and Jesus represents MERCY! perfect mercy that could forgive those who were killing him as it was being done. When we sin, God demands that justice be served, thrusting us out into the darkness if we are the least bit imperfect - and then, Jesus saves us with his mercy, by forgiving us and taking on our sins for himself. How this works exactly is up for debate. When we are through with this history lesson, I want to show why this was a false idea in all of its incarnations.
In the very early 1900s, the mormons still believed that god the father was Jehovah or LORD of the old testament, and Jesus was a separate person who played a role as explained above. The modern era was approaching, many converts were joining the church, and as a result, many of the members of the church were becoming uncomfortable with the idea of this GOD, personally untempered by a kinder half.
Luckily for them (or not, as your point of view may be), Talmage came along and introduced what I like to call reformed trinitarianism. Basically, the old testament God, Jehovah, really was Jesus - just pretending. Besides all of the weird stuff that does to your brain (if you were brought up to be a non-trinitarian) like Jesus talking about himself in third person; Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses were really talking to Jesus, not the father; and apparently you prayed to Jesus before he came and the Father after etc., it neatly solved the current moral dilemma by placing the mormon godhead in the same murky water as the rest of christianity. Even though this didn't really solve the problem, it DID in so many people's minds, that it didn't really matter one way or the other.
In this doctrinal setting (Jesus is Jehovah), the idea of Justice vs Mercy would not have become as important since both roles were being played by the same person anyway (thus the internal cohesion (or confusion, as I like to think of it as) of the two would have been emphasized rather than the separateness).
Now for the fun part! How is this idea fundamentally flawed?
First off, separating these two attributes between the pair of them implies that God cannot forgive, or is incapable of mercy. Many would tend to agree with this - he represents the LAW, and it would be unbefitting of him to bend it for us (as many a tale about kings exemplifies). But, the other side to this would be that Jesus cannot exhibit justice, or met out retribution. Before you say 'of course he does not judge us - he loves us all unconditionally', remember his words to the scribes and pharisees, remember how he scourged the temple of the money changers, how he scorched the fruitless fig tree. These are not the actions of a man without justice. The thing that Jesus did, that I think was remarkable, was he knew when people were selfish or greedy or abusive, and called them on it - even if it was an acceptable practice for the day. He also associated himself with, and forgave, those that society had cast out. In short, he could see through social and cultural labels down into the human soul.
I would also like to point out that God in the old testament isn't as unmerciful as many think. Just peruse through the search result for forgive in the old testament. As an example (as I am running out of time)
Psalms 86: 5 For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.
There are examples of god the father forgiving people without requiring a sacrifice BEFORE Jesus is born and is killed. There are also examples of Jesus freely forgiving those he met in his life "your sins are forgiven you, go and sin no more". What does this mean? There was no Justice exacted before forgiveness was granted - how is this possible in the DEATH=SIN/SIN=PUNISHMENT model of things?
Lastly, this idea sets up two different ideals - one just and the other merciful. If God and Jesus are both perfect, shouldn't they share an ideal rather than separating it out between them? Is perfection Just, or is it Merciful? If we are to be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect, should we show no mercy, but demand justice in every case? What becomes of the message of Jesus to forgive everyone who crosses our path?
We ourselves should be striving for a balance between the two, and so why not our prime examples in this life as well? God is merciful, Jesus is Just. Instead of patching up things we don't want to hear, we should take a close look at our holy books and either denounce their ideals as not our own, or come to an understanding of the message which the authors were intending.
Mormon Quote
"Mormonism be it true or false, holds out to men the greatest inducements that the human mind can grasp. And so it does... It teaches men that they can become divine, that man is God in embryo, that God was once man in mortality, and that the only difference between Gods, angels and men is a difference in education and development. Is such a religion to be sneered at? It teaches that the worlds on high, the stars that glitter in the blue vault of heaven, are kingdoms of God, that they were once earths like this, that they have been redeemed and glorified by the same laws, the same principles that are applied to this planet, and by which it will ascend to a perfected and glorified state. It teaches that these worlds are peopled with human beings, God's sons and daughters, and that every husband and father, may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, to some future planet."
- Orson F. Whitney 1895
- Orson F. Whitney 1895
Jehovah and Women
Note: I started writing this post months ago, and I don't really know what I was going to say - so I'm posting it incomplete with a follow-up post expressing some new concerns.
After reading the Bible, or other Hebrew-based literature, I can't quite shake off the feeling that something is out of place with the idea of a "loving father who only wants the best for all His children". Some examples of what disturb me are: Certain writings by Paul (all the women know which ones I mean), the fact that the Old Testament seems to be written by men and for men, speaking of the women in third person and using the male-only pronoun rather than the neutral (we don't notice this when reading in the English bible, as they are both translated as man, and we assume that women are included, since that is the way English works).
Moving on to the modern era, in Mormonism, men are required to have at least three wives in order to become a god (at least they think they do), where women are to only have one husband. Consider the eternal implications of this! We know that there is an equal number of male and female children being born. This is true all over the world in every country. If in eternity each male is partnered with three females, that leaves two thirds of the male spirits without a mate, and without a hope of eternal progression. I can see two possible solutions to this within the doctrines of traditional Mormonism. Either the third of the host of heaven who fell in the pre-existence and most, if not all those who are dammed in this life are male- therefore creating a large mis-balance between the genders and a reason for the 1:3 ratio (incidentally, I have read a journal from the 1800s that agrees with this theory). Or,
we do not believe in reincarnation ....
Here are some thoughts:
1) Men receive revelation for us, and they are sexist. God tells them correct principles, and they color them with their own ideas.
2) Jehovah doesn't like women (or think of them as being worth the same as a man)
3) Women were evil in the life before this, so they are paying for it now
4) Men are evil and they made Jehovah up so they could be mean to women
After reading the Bible, or other Hebrew-based literature, I can't quite shake off the feeling that something is out of place with the idea of a "loving father who only wants the best for all His children". Some examples of what disturb me are: Certain writings by Paul (all the women know which ones I mean), the fact that the Old Testament seems to be written by men and for men, speaking of the women in third person and using the male-only pronoun rather than the neutral (we don't notice this when reading in the English bible, as they are both translated as man, and we assume that women are included, since that is the way English works).
Moving on to the modern era, in Mormonism, men are required to have at least three wives in order to become a god (at least they think they do), where women are to only have one husband. Consider the eternal implications of this! We know that there is an equal number of male and female children being born. This is true all over the world in every country. If in eternity each male is partnered with three females, that leaves two thirds of the male spirits without a mate, and without a hope of eternal progression. I can see two possible solutions to this within the doctrines of traditional Mormonism. Either the third of the host of heaven who fell in the pre-existence and most, if not all those who are dammed in this life are male- therefore creating a large mis-balance between the genders and a reason for the 1:3 ratio (incidentally, I have read a journal from the 1800s that agrees with this theory). Or,
we do not believe in reincarnation ....
Here are some thoughts:
1) Men receive revelation for us, and they are sexist. God tells them correct principles, and they color them with their own ideas.
2) Jehovah doesn't like women (or think of them as being worth the same as a man)
3) Women were evil in the life before this, so they are paying for it now
4) Men are evil and they made Jehovah up so they could be mean to women
Becoming Eve
The traditional religions in the West today are sadly lacking in an active, positive role for women. Men run the show, men write the scriptures, men speak to God, God is a man, etc. Mormonism is no exception.
I can see some small efforts made by the early Mormon church to include women. These efforts died out near the turn of the century. Priesthood blessings preformed by women were discouraged, the Relief Society was lumped in with the Primary and Youth organizations under the control of the Patriarchal Priesthood (rather than being autonomous), and so on. While the rest of the world was granting women more rights, the Mormons were restricting. I'll leave polygamy for another post or two :-)
As a Mormon woman who is interested in the stranger doctrines of the early church, I wish there had been more revealed about the role of women in the whole scheme of things. In all, it is a confusing mass of data that no one has bothered to reconcile. The main cause of this is the tendency of historians to sweep under the rug many important events and trends because they are deemed "crazy", "heretical", or "dangerous" by the modern church leaders. Publishing the results of research on this topic often results in dis-fellowship or excommunication. The scholars brave enough to study Adam-God (or even interested in it) are mostly men, thus don't have a burning desire to find out what exactly is going to happen to all the woman. A feeling that they are going to be all right and happy is good enough. Now, all you men out there who are exclaiming about how much you do care, please, contribute to this blog, and we can all benefit.
I can see some small efforts made by the early Mormon church to include women. These efforts died out near the turn of the century. Priesthood blessings preformed by women were discouraged, the Relief Society was lumped in with the Primary and Youth organizations under the control of the Patriarchal Priesthood (rather than being autonomous), and so on. While the rest of the world was granting women more rights, the Mormons were restricting. I'll leave polygamy for another post or two :-)
As a Mormon woman who is interested in the stranger doctrines of the early church, I wish there had been more revealed about the role of women in the whole scheme of things. In all, it is a confusing mass of data that no one has bothered to reconcile. The main cause of this is the tendency of historians to sweep under the rug many important events and trends because they are deemed "crazy", "heretical", or "dangerous" by the modern church leaders. Publishing the results of research on this topic often results in dis-fellowship or excommunication. The scholars brave enough to study Adam-God (or even interested in it) are mostly men, thus don't have a burning desire to find out what exactly is going to happen to all the woman. A feeling that they are going to be all right and happy is good enough. Now, all you men out there who are exclaiming about how much you do care, please, contribute to this blog, and we can all benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)