A person can only take so much of the existential angst that one encounters from reading blogs relating to Mormonism. If anything ever showed that Kierkegaard’s concept of anxiety was a valid theory, it surely must have been demonstrated by the anxiety that Mormonism brings and its accompanying dizziness. This anxiety is a direct result of the freedom to choose that Mormons believe that they have been given from God. It is a power so great that even God himself cannot interfere with it. Even those who leave the Mormon church itself are forever influenced (tainted?) by this idea of choice and freedom. Dr. Viktor E. Frankl called choice of attitude the last of the human freedoms. Regardless of what others try to do to take away our freedoms and our dignity, we always have the power to choose how to respond to the taking away. Short of killing us, no one can completely take away our freedom to choose. But for all of our power to choose, how are we to know that we made the right choice? That we made the best choice? And this is the desire to know and the uncertainty that leads to angst. Despite the advances of science and technology, we don’t know what the future holds. If there has been any failure of the scientific method, it is that it only allows for predictions of the future and not knowledge of the future.
I have to admit that I am confused at the use of the word ‘empowerment’ that I encounter in my readings, as though someone is withholding the power to choose. If we have the freedom to choose, what does the word ‘empowerment’ mean? What does it signify? I submit that it is a meaningless buzzword. It is a subterfuge, an artifice and a ruse. People use it to give the illusion of benefice. If I say that I am empowered, what I am saying? Someone has to grant the power or authority to me so that I am empowered. If I accept the empowerment, does it not mean that the person or group who granted it to me had the power in the first place? But how does another person or group give me the power to choose if I already have that power?
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
On Truth and Conspiracy Theories of Ignorance
Recently, I’ve been reading Karl Popper’s “Conjectures and Refutations”. I’ve read a couple of his books before and like the other ones, this one is written clearly and concisely. An interesting point that he raises makes me realize that for all the back and forth that occurs, Mormons and ex-Mormons are cut from the same silk. They may disagree about the truthfulness of the church, but they do fall prey to what Popper describes as the “truth is manifest” doctrine. The idea states that when a person encounters the truth, it is manifestly true, that is to say, any person who encounters the truth, by virtue of their humanity, is able to tell that they have encountered the truth. Popper terms this an optimistic epistemology. And it’s easy to see how it influences both Mormons and ex-Mormons.
Mormons believe that when one hears the gospel, that person recognizes the truth and joins. Ex-Mormons believe that when someone encounters the arguments against the truthfulness of the church, they can’t help but admit that the church is not true. Nothing strange here.
But the strangeness comes out when people don’t respond in the way you would expect them to when faced with the manifest truth. In order to explain this dissonance, people invent conspiracy theories. This idea is especially prevalent among ex-Mormons, who I gather don’t seem to realize that a lot of their ideas are conspiracy theories, with little basis in fact or logic. Take Lyndon Lambert, an excommunicant, who informs us of his particular conspiracy theory on the Book of Mormon. The original quote can be found here.
12. Did you at one time believe in the literal historicity of events and characters in the Bible and Book of Mormon? What are your feelings on those subjects now? Yes, I totally believed. Now I think that people that still believe in the historicity of the book fall into one of three categories:
a. They have not examined the evidence.
b. They are incapable, intellectually, to grasp the conclusivity of the evidence. It is truly overwhelming.
c. They cannot be objective while examining the evidence. Ironically, it is a combination of fear and false pride (and perhaps mind control) that blocks the neural receptors and prevents normal objective evaluation of the data.
Everyone of these categories is a conspiracy theory of ignorance:
1) They haven’t examined the evidence. Because the evidence is manifestly true, anyone who did so, unless they fell into the latter two categories, would be convinced by the ‘conclusivity of the evidence’
2) People believe because they are idiots. Only an idiot could see all the evidence and not know that it is manifestly true;
3) They are falling prey to their emotions and ominous rumblings of mind control. (Plus, Mr. Lamborn's theory of emotions blocking neural receptors preventing objective evaluation is novel. He seems to know an awful lot about neurobiology, even though he's an aeronautical engineer, when the links between emotions and the brain are still the subject of intense debate and study. I wonder which scientific studies he is relying on that allow him to so confidently state why Mormons can't see the manifest truth?)
It doesn’t seem to cross his mind that the truth isn’t as apparent as he thinks it is and that the evidence isn’t quite as cut and dried.
A lot of ex-Mormons talk about the how the church conceals the evidence or forces the members not to view it. Why do they think this? Because a lot of people aren’t leaving the church, at least, not in the numbers the ex-Mormons would expect if the members had access to the same information that they had. So they have to invent a conspiracy theory to explain their (wrong) idea that the falseness of the truth is manifest. The answer: the church is concealing the information from its members or warning them against using the Internet to look for it. Why would the church do this? Obviously, because its truth claims are manifestly false, anyone with access to it would leave the church. The conspiracy theorists take it a step further. They say, "The GAs talk about Internet pornography now, but it’s only a matter of time until they start decrying other things on the Internet." (Regardless of the fact that the church has consistently spoke out against pornography for years and years prior to the advent of the Internet). But this is hardly true. Anyone with a computer has access to any information, no matter how unfriendly to the church, and the church has no way to monitor it. The church can excommunicate the speaker, but they can’t silence her and they can't deafen the hearer.
My point is this: Let's look for the truth and not rely on conspiracy theories to explain cognitive dissonance. It's been said that people could go to heaven if they used only half of the energy they use to go to hell. Maybe if people spent more time trying to understand the truth and less time inventing fanciful conspiracy theories, humankind might actually progress.
Mormons believe that when one hears the gospel, that person recognizes the truth and joins. Ex-Mormons believe that when someone encounters the arguments against the truthfulness of the church, they can’t help but admit that the church is not true. Nothing strange here.
But the strangeness comes out when people don’t respond in the way you would expect them to when faced with the manifest truth. In order to explain this dissonance, people invent conspiracy theories. This idea is especially prevalent among ex-Mormons, who I gather don’t seem to realize that a lot of their ideas are conspiracy theories, with little basis in fact or logic. Take Lyndon Lambert, an excommunicant, who informs us of his particular conspiracy theory on the Book of Mormon. The original quote can be found here.
12. Did you at one time believe in the literal historicity of events and characters in the Bible and Book of Mormon? What are your feelings on those subjects now? Yes, I totally believed. Now I think that people that still believe in the historicity of the book fall into one of three categories:
a. They have not examined the evidence.
b. They are incapable, intellectually, to grasp the conclusivity of the evidence. It is truly overwhelming.
c. They cannot be objective while examining the evidence. Ironically, it is a combination of fear and false pride (and perhaps mind control) that blocks the neural receptors and prevents normal objective evaluation of the data.
Everyone of these categories is a conspiracy theory of ignorance:
1) They haven’t examined the evidence. Because the evidence is manifestly true, anyone who did so, unless they fell into the latter two categories, would be convinced by the ‘conclusivity of the evidence’
2) People believe because they are idiots. Only an idiot could see all the evidence and not know that it is manifestly true;
3) They are falling prey to their emotions and ominous rumblings of mind control. (Plus, Mr. Lamborn's theory of emotions blocking neural receptors preventing objective evaluation is novel. He seems to know an awful lot about neurobiology, even though he's an aeronautical engineer, when the links between emotions and the brain are still the subject of intense debate and study. I wonder which scientific studies he is relying on that allow him to so confidently state why Mormons can't see the manifest truth?)
It doesn’t seem to cross his mind that the truth isn’t as apparent as he thinks it is and that the evidence isn’t quite as cut and dried.
A lot of ex-Mormons talk about the how the church conceals the evidence or forces the members not to view it. Why do they think this? Because a lot of people aren’t leaving the church, at least, not in the numbers the ex-Mormons would expect if the members had access to the same information that they had. So they have to invent a conspiracy theory to explain their (wrong) idea that the falseness of the truth is manifest. The answer: the church is concealing the information from its members or warning them against using the Internet to look for it. Why would the church do this? Obviously, because its truth claims are manifestly false, anyone with access to it would leave the church. The conspiracy theorists take it a step further. They say, "The GAs talk about Internet pornography now, but it’s only a matter of time until they start decrying other things on the Internet." (Regardless of the fact that the church has consistently spoke out against pornography for years and years prior to the advent of the Internet). But this is hardly true. Anyone with a computer has access to any information, no matter how unfriendly to the church, and the church has no way to monitor it. The church can excommunicate the speaker, but they can’t silence her and they can't deafen the hearer.
My point is this: Let's look for the truth and not rely on conspiracy theories to explain cognitive dissonance. It's been said that people could go to heaven if they used only half of the energy they use to go to hell. Maybe if people spent more time trying to understand the truth and less time inventing fanciful conspiracy theories, humankind might actually progress.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
On Mormon Men
Mormon men are downtrodden. In General Conference, they are typically labeled as pornography-consuming, abusive slobs who need to do a lot better if they want to curry God’s favor. Women never get this from male General Authorities, and when they are encouraged to do things different or better by a female General Authority, they start getting existential angst over what it means to be a Mormon woman and a feminist. Mormon men aren’t given the option to do the same. I’d like to see a male General Authority get up and tell women to repent of their nagging and getting angry over things that their husband had no way of knowing a priori that it was hurtful.
I wish that the Church would stress the choices and opportunities available to men, that they don’t have to be tied down to a wife and family, that they can accomplish their goals with money left over in the bank every month. Instead of regaling them with tales of supposed joy over the ability to bless and baptize their own children and watch them grow up, it should present the whole picture and present male role models who have succeeded in business and the arts without the unnecessary baggage of a family.
When will men get their fair place in the Mormon church? One day middle-aged single Mormon men will not be viewed with suspicion by their fellow church-goers as someone inferior for their self-imposed marital status (as men in the church are culturally empowered to be the proposers of marriage, after all). One day Mormon men will be viewed as more important than just a glorified income producer. One day they'll be seen as more than a bunch of potential house-movers. I’m sure it’s only time before the Mormon church moves past its misandric past and moves towards a new, enlightened future.
I wish that the Church would stress the choices and opportunities available to men, that they don’t have to be tied down to a wife and family, that they can accomplish their goals with money left over in the bank every month. Instead of regaling them with tales of supposed joy over the ability to bless and baptize their own children and watch them grow up, it should present the whole picture and present male role models who have succeeded in business and the arts without the unnecessary baggage of a family.
When will men get their fair place in the Mormon church? One day middle-aged single Mormon men will not be viewed with suspicion by their fellow church-goers as someone inferior for their self-imposed marital status (as men in the church are culturally empowered to be the proposers of marriage, after all). One day Mormon men will be viewed as more important than just a glorified income producer. One day they'll be seen as more than a bunch of potential house-movers. I’m sure it’s only time before the Mormon church moves past its misandric past and moves towards a new, enlightened future.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
On the Effects of Reform
I remember a newspaper article that came out when Pope Benedict was chosen as Pope and the writer of the article was talking to his friend who happened to be a lapsed Catholic. The friend said that the Catholic Church should have voted in a more liberal Pope. When the writer asked his friend if he would go back to church if a more liberal Pope had been chosen, the friend replied no. The writer asked the friend why exactly the Catholic Church should have chosen a liberal Pope if it made no difference to lapsed members such as himself. It raises an interesting question. If the Church were to change certain aspects (e.g. ordaining women, ‘faithful’ history, etc.), how many ex-members would come back? If none, what difference would any reform make?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
On Religion and Community
Here’s an interesting article that I recently read. It’s an older article, written about thirty years ago that really encapsulates the feeling that we as Christians feel when confronted with information that may not necessarily comport to our previously-held beliefs. The part that really stuck out in my opinion is the following quote:
“One thing that brought me back to the church was asking simply: What are the alternatives to the church? Where are the communities that sanction the pursuit of meaning and truth as a legitimate enterprise? that have material and personal resources to assist in this search? that provide regular occasions for confession of failures? that renew and inspire? that provide a setting where children are nurtured? where family members can be buried? where births can be celebrated? where social issues can be debated? There are a number of institutions that deal with one or several of these questions, but historically the church has demonstrated its ability to energize all of these activities.”
Perhaps sometimes when we get embroiled in historical and theological debates, we miss aspects of our religion that are authentic, inspiring and good. Instead of sending forty thousand monks up in arms about an inch or two of cowl, maybe we should focus on the aspects of our culture and beliefs that bind us more tightly together and develop our community. Can there be any wrong in that?
“One thing that brought me back to the church was asking simply: What are the alternatives to the church? Where are the communities that sanction the pursuit of meaning and truth as a legitimate enterprise? that have material and personal resources to assist in this search? that provide regular occasions for confession of failures? that renew and inspire? that provide a setting where children are nurtured? where family members can be buried? where births can be celebrated? where social issues can be debated? There are a number of institutions that deal with one or several of these questions, but historically the church has demonstrated its ability to energize all of these activities.”
Perhaps sometimes when we get embroiled in historical and theological debates, we miss aspects of our religion that are authentic, inspiring and good. Instead of sending forty thousand monks up in arms about an inch or two of cowl, maybe we should focus on the aspects of our culture and beliefs that bind us more tightly together and develop our community. Can there be any wrong in that?
Monday, September 10, 2007
On Tal Bachman
Disclaimer: The following is an ad hominem attack on Tal Bachman. If you are Mr. Bachman, or one of his small number of ever dwindling fans, I suggest that you not read this post. I will try to be objective, but be forewarned; I do not have a lot of good things to say about this pretentious, washed-up has-been.
I don’t like Tal Bachman. I’ve read a lot of his posts, and if they are any reflection of who he really is, he must really be one pathetic son of a bitch. Am writing this because he left Mormondom? No, I can’t really say that I’m sad to see him go. Some of the nicest, coolest, warm-hearted, generous individuals I know have left the Mormon church and I have yet to launch a single ad hominem attack on them. In fact, we continue to be good friends regardless of varying religious choices. Membership in an organization is no arbiter when it comes to friendship. With that in mind, let me turn my attention to Mr. Bachman. His singular claim to fame is that he wrote and sang a hit song, “She’s So High.” As a one-hit wonder, he’s in the same category as the illustrious Right Said Fred, Vanilla Ice and Lou Bega (of Mambo No. 5 fame). I’m surprised he hasn’t starred on the Surreal Life yet. Maybe he’s holding out for a spot on Dancing with the ‘Stars’. Marie Osmond made it, why not him?
He has written a voluminous amount of material regarding his thoughts on Mormonism. I’m not sure if he intends to sound like a pretentious, holier-than-thou, pseudo-intellectual, but everything he writes is pretentious, holier-than-thou or pseudo-intellectual. Take a blog post he published a few months ago in May. He criticizes the Mormon conception of heaven and hell, but he makes himself sound like a self-satisfied jerk in the following quote (which can be found here)
“I think heaven isn't a place we go to after we die; I think it is a place we can live in everyday, if we are determined to, and perhaps, if we have a bit of luck. I think it is something we create and find here on earth...and right now. Heaven can be right now...
“I feel sad sometimes when I think of how long I lived always thinking of heaven as another place, and another time. I was too often blind to all the beauty right before me, because I was too often straining so hard to see something far, far off in the distance - which, it turns out, there is no reason to believe is even there, at least in the way I thought.
“I submit that true heaven isn't crazy stories, or distant stars, or strange names and strange clothes and strange spouses. I think it is something that we all have, within us, the power to create and experience, at least to some extent, right here and right now...”
Yeah, whatever, buddy. And with three paragraphs, he assigns those who don’t share his easy rockstar lifestyle to a hell worse than any that God proposed. What happens to those sorry souls, who, for whatever reason, don’t have ‘a bit of luck’? What happens to them? Mr. Bachman would consign them to misery and woe because they are not determined enough, I guess. Or chastise them for hoping for some kind of better existence in the next life? And what is the basis for Mr. Bachman’s faith in humankind? He claims there is no reason to believe in heaven. I agree, at least as far as objective evidence is concerned. But what evidence does he have the mankind can make a heaven here on earth? His own Shangri-La lifestyle, where his biggest complaints are that nobody in the record industry wants to hear his music? He wants to argue both sides of the fence. He has to have a reason for the distant heaven, but offers no reasons for the heaven ‘within’.
Other posts focus on his inability to talk to females in the past because of his worry about temptation. Obviously this is the Mormon church’s fault. The most common complaint I hear about this church is that it stultifies relationships between members of the opposite sex who happen to be married to other people. It would be completely illogical to assume that Mr. Bachman stultifies himself. Maybe someone should tell him that just because he feels ‘tempted’, it is highly unlikely that the person he is talking to feels the same way. When I talk to women at work or at school, I usually don’t get the impression that they are chomping at the bit to go to bed with me, regardless of how naturally charming I am. It must be a rockstar complex to think like that. Maybe Mr. Bachman should evaluate how he internalized the teachings of the Mormon church, rather than make unwarranted generalizations about the impact those teachings have on the general membership.
I think most of my invection comes from the colossal waste of time it was to read what he had written and the colossal waste of time writing this post represents. I don’t usually like (or write) ad hominem attacks, but when someone practically begs for it, can I be anything but obliging?
I don’t like Tal Bachman. I’ve read a lot of his posts, and if they are any reflection of who he really is, he must really be one pathetic son of a bitch. Am writing this because he left Mormondom? No, I can’t really say that I’m sad to see him go. Some of the nicest, coolest, warm-hearted, generous individuals I know have left the Mormon church and I have yet to launch a single ad hominem attack on them. In fact, we continue to be good friends regardless of varying religious choices. Membership in an organization is no arbiter when it comes to friendship. With that in mind, let me turn my attention to Mr. Bachman. His singular claim to fame is that he wrote and sang a hit song, “She’s So High.” As a one-hit wonder, he’s in the same category as the illustrious Right Said Fred, Vanilla Ice and Lou Bega (of Mambo No. 5 fame). I’m surprised he hasn’t starred on the Surreal Life yet. Maybe he’s holding out for a spot on Dancing with the ‘Stars’. Marie Osmond made it, why not him?
He has written a voluminous amount of material regarding his thoughts on Mormonism. I’m not sure if he intends to sound like a pretentious, holier-than-thou, pseudo-intellectual, but everything he writes is pretentious, holier-than-thou or pseudo-intellectual. Take a blog post he published a few months ago in May. He criticizes the Mormon conception of heaven and hell, but he makes himself sound like a self-satisfied jerk in the following quote (which can be found here)
“I think heaven isn't a place we go to after we die; I think it is a place we can live in everyday, if we are determined to, and perhaps, if we have a bit of luck. I think it is something we create and find here on earth...and right now. Heaven can be right now...
“I feel sad sometimes when I think of how long I lived always thinking of heaven as another place, and another time. I was too often blind to all the beauty right before me, because I was too often straining so hard to see something far, far off in the distance - which, it turns out, there is no reason to believe is even there, at least in the way I thought.
“I submit that true heaven isn't crazy stories, or distant stars, or strange names and strange clothes and strange spouses. I think it is something that we all have, within us, the power to create and experience, at least to some extent, right here and right now...”
Yeah, whatever, buddy. And with three paragraphs, he assigns those who don’t share his easy rockstar lifestyle to a hell worse than any that God proposed. What happens to those sorry souls, who, for whatever reason, don’t have ‘a bit of luck’? What happens to them? Mr. Bachman would consign them to misery and woe because they are not determined enough, I guess. Or chastise them for hoping for some kind of better existence in the next life? And what is the basis for Mr. Bachman’s faith in humankind? He claims there is no reason to believe in heaven. I agree, at least as far as objective evidence is concerned. But what evidence does he have the mankind can make a heaven here on earth? His own Shangri-La lifestyle, where his biggest complaints are that nobody in the record industry wants to hear his music? He wants to argue both sides of the fence. He has to have a reason for the distant heaven, but offers no reasons for the heaven ‘within’.
Other posts focus on his inability to talk to females in the past because of his worry about temptation. Obviously this is the Mormon church’s fault. The most common complaint I hear about this church is that it stultifies relationships between members of the opposite sex who happen to be married to other people. It would be completely illogical to assume that Mr. Bachman stultifies himself. Maybe someone should tell him that just because he feels ‘tempted’, it is highly unlikely that the person he is talking to feels the same way. When I talk to women at work or at school, I usually don’t get the impression that they are chomping at the bit to go to bed with me, regardless of how naturally charming I am. It must be a rockstar complex to think like that. Maybe Mr. Bachman should evaluate how he internalized the teachings of the Mormon church, rather than make unwarranted generalizations about the impact those teachings have on the general membership.
I think most of my invection comes from the colossal waste of time it was to read what he had written and the colossal waste of time writing this post represents. I don’t usually like (or write) ad hominem attacks, but when someone practically begs for it, can I be anything but obliging?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
On Irony
Alanis Morrisette’s song “Ironic” from her album “Jagged Little Pill” is ironic in that every situation mentioned is not the least bit ironic, at least not in the way the term is used by prescriptivists. Irony can be properly defined as discrepancy between the expected result and actual results. Having read lots of blogs of current and former Mormons, one thing (well, several things, but this post is labeled “On Irony” after all) caught my attention. A lot of former Mormons state ad naseum that the reason they left the Mormon church was their perceived incongruity between the teachings of the church and the ‘empirical evidence.’ That’s all fine and dandy with me. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I believe that religion boils down to pure choice and that any post hoc rationalization of that choice is inherently unjustifiable whether you stay or go. The emphasis on science and empiricism is remarkable because rather than reject the teachings they find unjustified, they embark on a path that is different from what one would suspect. For instance, several former Mormons brag about their inhibitions and ability to drink alcohol, coffee and tea. They also loudly proclaim that their lives are much better now they don’t spend Sunday stuck in a three-hour block meeting. The irony is this: scientific studies show that religious groups that abstain from tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea and illegal drugs tend to have longer life spans than those who don’t abstain from those substances. A lot of people would assume that observant Mormons have, on average, the longest life spans in the United States. They would be completely wrong, however. In actuality, that title belongs to the Seventh Day Adventists, who in addition to forsaking the aforesaid substances, also do not consume meat. As far as church-going is concerned, there are scientific studies that suggest that regularly going to church can increase your life span. The irony of all this, therefore, is why would people who claim to swayed by scientific arguments jettison the beliefs that appear to be scientifically justified?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
