If you have like three hours of your life to spare, the above could be worth your time. Maverick atheist Emerson Green discusses philosophy and Mormon theology with three members of the LDS Church. To be honest, all three seem somewhat heterodox and open-minded. I´m more used to the old style Mormons who were just as dogmatic about their peculiar version of Christianity as standard American evangelicals are about theirs. Green (who I think is ex-Pentecostal) originally agreed with Sam Harris, who famously said that Mormonism is the least probable religion, since it takes all the absurdities of Christianity and simply adds new ones on top. However, after thinking about it more (and discussing with actual Mormons), Green came to the conclusion that on some kind of philosophical level, Mormonism is actually *better* than mainline Christianity, although I assume he still considers the more "empirical" claims of the LDS Church to be somewhat out there (golden plates, et cetera).
The discussions cover a lot of ground, obviosuly, but here are some of the main take aways. Green believes that evangelicals who criticize Mormonism have a double standard, since many Mormon claims may just as well be true, if you have a supranaturalist worldview. If you accept the miracle stories in the Bible, why can´t the miracle stories surrounding Joseph Smith be true, just as well? If you accept the New Testament as new revelation, why can´t there be additional new revelations? As for the Book of Mormon being heavily anachronistic, well, what about all the anachronisms and contradictions in the Bible? (Apparently, Abraham´s camels are an anachronism, just as much as the Book of Mormon horses.) Green is right. It does seem very common for apologists of one religion to use the historical-critical method when attacking every other religion...except their own! (See also the Outsider Test of Faith or OTF á la John Loftus.) Interestingly, the Mormons Green is talking to don´t view Joseph Smith as infallible, pointing out that the Biblical prophets or even the Christian apostles weren´t infallible either.
The Mormons featured in the discussions are universalists, or near-universalists. They seem sympathetic to panpsychism or panentheism. There is even a streak of "physicalism" in their reasoning. God is seen as a being within the universe, not standing outside it and creating it ex nihilo. In other words: God isn´t all-powerful, at least not in the standard Christian sense. Green sees this as a philosophical advantage, since Mormons don´t have to explain why a perfectly good, loving and just god who is omnipotent doesn´t simply eradicate evil and suffering. It seems some of the LDS members he talks to don´t accept the "orthodox" Mormon view that humans can become gods since God himself was once a human. There is an eternal God who has always been God, but - as already indicated - he exists within the universe and is subject to certain cosmic laws. (Avid readers of my content may recall process theology here.)
One of the Mormons featured is African-American, and freely admits that this was a huge problem for him when as a teenager he started investigating Mormonism. For a long time, the LDS Church held White supremacist views of Blacks, denying them "the priesthood" and access to the secret temple rituals (since most Mormon males are "priests", this effectively barred Blacks from most positions in the Church). However, it has surfaced that Joseph Smith actually appointed at least one Black male to the priesthood, Elijah Abel. (I assume this is what is alluded to in the discussion.) It could therefore be argued that the racist view is really a deviation from the original stance. It was officially rescinded already during the 1970´s.
I´m sure more (much more) could be said about this topic, but three hours may be just enough right now...
No comments:
Post a Comment