Religion's Vital Role? What About the LDS Role?

[Mormorrisey]

So as long as I generally use the Gospel Library app, I'm "allowed" to use my phone in sacrament, even if I do sneak a peak at NOM as well. So I see the June Ensign is out, and I take a look. Oh, it's a barnburner - a visiting teaching message(?) on priesthood power and covenants, another on how living the gospel nourishes families, still another on how to face uncertainty with faith, and the ever present article on "overcoming the danger of doubt" by some 70s dude.

By far, though, the most infuriating one to read was Oaks's seemingly only mantra on religious freedom, called "religion's vital global role." To spare you the pain I went through in reading it, let me summarize briefly. There are a lot of religions in the world and lots of religious people so it must be important, religion makes social change in the world, there's a refugee crisis, and the church is great because we serve other people. Let me just attack one of these points, but feel free to comment on some of the other stupidities:

1) Religion makes social change. He uses the example of Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce and others to argue that without religion, slavery and apartheid wouldn't have been abolished, etc. etc. Even conceding that point, can't you see the logical fallacy in your own argument? WHAT FREAKIN' SOCIAL CHANGES HAS THE LDS CHURCH EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN LET ALONE HAVE INITIATED? In fact, it's been the exact opposite; the church has been twenty years behind every social change in the world for the last 180 years, from civil rights, to LBGTQ rights, to women's rights. Twenty years behind. I can't believe he was seriously writing this nonsense, and probably really believes that the church is right at the forefront of social change. No, Elder Oaks, the church is seriously retarding any social change in the American midwest, and I'm pretty glad I'm far enough away that your religious freedom to isolate yourself behind a wall of bigotry does not affect me.

As you can tell, this one really annoys me.

[oliver_denom]

1) Religion makes social change. He uses the example of Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce and others to argue that without religion, slavery and apartheid wouldn't have been abolished, etc. etc. Even conceding that point, can't you see the logical fallacy in your own argument? WHAT FREAKIN' SOCIAL CHANGES HAS THE LDS CHURCH EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN LET ALONE HAVE INITIATED? In fact, it's been the exact opposite; the church has been twenty years behind every social change in the world for the last 180 years, from civil rights, to LBGTQ rights, to women's rights. Twenty years behind. I can't believe he was seriously writing this nonsense, and probably really believes that the church is right at the forefront of social change. No, Elder Oaks, the church is seriously retarding any social change in the American midwest, and I'm pretty glad I'm far enough away that your religious freedom to isolate yourself behind a wall of bigotry does not affect me.

Religion is one possible tool for initiation social change, but the disconnect is that when it does perform that function, it's by necessity liberal religion. Conservative religions preserve tradition and the status quo while liberal religion seeks change to the existing order and progress.

Both forms of religion exist together, but by its very nature a majority of religion is or leans conservative. For example, religion has also been a force for maintaining and promoting slavery. In the run up to the civil war, abolition was the radical position. Most, like the southern Baptist convention, taught that slavery wasn't only justified but a god ordained institution. The same arguments were used against intermarriage of races, and in Mormon circles against giving black people the priesthood or temple endowments.

So if we are to take Oaks seriously, that the value of religion is in its push for social change, then he must talking about liberal religion and excluding Mormonism. Which religions are out there fighting for social change today, and which are throwing themselves on their swords to keep things as they were? If social change is that important to Mr. Oaks then he should either change his positions on homosexuality, or become a Unitarian.

[Corsair]

1) Religion makes social change. He uses the example of Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce and others to argue that without religion, slavery and apartheid wouldn't have been abolished, etc. etc. Even conceding that point, can't you see the logical fallacy in your own argument? WHAT FREAKIN' SOCIAL CHANGES HAS THE LDS CHURCH EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN LET ALONE HAVE INITIATED? In fact, it's been the exact opposite; the church has been twenty years behind every social change in the world for the last 180 years, from civil rights, to LBGTQ rights, to women's rights. Twenty years behind. I can't believe he was seriously writing this nonsense, and probably really believes that the church is right at the forefront of social change. No, Elder Oaks, the church is seriously retarding any social change in the American midwest, and I'm pretty glad I'm far enough away that your religious freedom to isolate yourself behind a wall of bigotry does not affect me.

This bothers me a lot also. What is the compelling reason to stick with the LDS church when all these other churches inspired great things? None of the reasons that Oaks states lead unequivocally towards being a faithful Mormon. It sounds like I could happily be a non-denominational Christian and find a small, local church to attend and support. I would love to attend John Hamer's church if it was not a 4 hour flight one way. What can the LDS church claim is vitally important about itself such that other people should join and support their local LDS ward?

[redjay]

Mormonism still frames the way I view a lot of the world. Ala Book of Mormon I like the view that when churches act as god would have them act they act as the church of god - when they act cruelly then they act as the church of the devil (I think of the devil as a metaphor).

So it grates me when the church is 20 years (agreed Morrissey) behind social equality movements - while proclaiming to be the one true church

[LostGirl]

I was intrigued so I went and read the article. As you mentioned there is much to comment on but on the specific point about social change:

1. Many of the most significant moral advances in Western civilization have been motivated by religious principles and persuaded to official adoption by pulpit preaching. So it was with the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States, and the Civil Rights movement of the last half-century. These advances were not motivated and moved by secular ethics but were driven primarily by persons who had a clear religious vision of what was morally right.

It is amazing to me that he can talk about this with a straight face, knowing the racist history of the church.

2. In the United States, our enormous private sector of charitable works—education, hospitals, care for the poor, and countless other charities of great value—originated with and is still sponsored most significantly by religious organizations and religious impulses.

How much of that enormous private sector is provided by the church (outside of utah)? I see many other churches that are heavily involved in charitable endeavours in the community but ours is not.

3. Western societies are not held together primarily by the overall enforcement of laws, which would be impractical, but most important by citizens who voluntarily obey the unenforceable because of their internal norms of correct behavior. For many, it is religious belief in right and wrong and an anticipated accountability to a higher power that produces such voluntary self-regulation. In fact, religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of Western nations that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing all our freedoms.

The church would have us believe that we only have good values because we are members. We are continually warned about the evils of the world. But I have come to realise that most people are good, ethical people because they believe that it is right, not because their church tells them to be. They know that society functions better when citizens treat each other with respect. There is of course an argument to be made that these values stem from centuries of religious tradition. Did people originally join a religion because they wanted to be taught how to live, or because that religion aligned with their values? Chicken - egg.

4. Along with their private counterparts, religious organizations serve as mediating institutions to shape and temper the encroaching power of government on individuals and private organizations.

I am sorry but I feel the church trying to exert more power over me than any government or private organisation.

5. Religion inspires many believers to render service to others, which, in total, confers enormous benefit on communities and countries.

Refer to chicken - egg thought above. Are charitable people more drawn to religion or does religion produce charitable people?

6. Religion strengthens the social fabric of society. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has taught: “[Religion] remains the most powerful community builder the world has known. … Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history.”

I agree that people need communities. He is making the assumption though that Individualism is a bad thing. Our religion at least pays lip service to the idea that we are all unique but is quick to discourage those who seek to walk their own path and express their individuality.

7. Finally, Clayton M. Christensen, a Latter-day Saint who is hailed as a worldwide “thought leader” on business management and innovation, has written that “religion is the foundation of democracy and prosperity.” Much more could be said about the positive role of religion in economic development.

Who? And yes the church seems to take seriously its' role in prosperity and economic development. Whether it should do so rather than engaging in local charitable endeavours is questionable in my mind.

In my mind I think it all comes back to the chicken egg question. Is religion important because it makes people good and therefore is vital to society or historically have good people chosen religion because it agrees with their core values and therefore it became an powerful force in society?

[Mormorrisey]

I was intrigued so I went and read the article.

I'm so sorry I did that to you.

But that's a great synopsis of all the challenges of JUST THIS SECTION of the article. The other one that bothers me is that he mentions the church has a whole host of "willing workers" that can help out in disasters and crises. Uh, isn't Utah in the midst of a homeless crisis from what I'm reading, and the church is doing jack-all?

Who? And yes the church seems to take seriously its' role in prosperity and economic development. Whether it should do so rather than engaging in local charitable endeavours is questionable in my mind.

Yeah, this last one was particularly egregious. Like we need religious freedom to become one of the world's largest real estate corporations? And just for the record, Christensen's a business guru and used to be, I think, Dean of the Harvard School of Business. Someone with less apathy than I can look it up!

[oliver_denom]

But that's a great synopsis of all the challenges of JUST THIS SECTION of the article. The other one that bothers me is that he mentions the church has a whole host of "willing workers" that can help out in disasters and crises. Uh, isn't Utah in the midst of a homeless crisis from what I'm reading, and the church is doing jack-all?

There are a couple of things that really turned me off with Mormon volunteerism, especially during a disaster. First, they don't organize according to expertise, they organize according to priesthood authority. Sometimes those things match up, but most of the time they don't. What you get is a lot of people standing around waiting to be told what to do through the proper chain of command, and the people who could take charge, aren't listened to. However, once they do get up an running, they really ARE good at following instructions and completing assignments. You just don't want them on the ground first thing.

The second was those damn Mormon Helping Hands t-shirts. We had an honest to god disaster in my city a couple of years ago, an all hands on deck situation. I mean, people's lives were devastated and we were in the middle of it trying to do something, anything. Meanwhile, our SP was almost giddy. He had the PR rep calling newspapers and arranging photo opportunities. We had members excitedly filming people work in hopes that it would make one of those General Conference news reels. Then, the very next week in testimony meeting, person after person got up to testify how god sent the flood in order to activate a member, or bring missionaries into someone's home. It was awful. I refused to wear their shirts. The whole business was dirtier than cleaning out the muck.

[redjay]

[/quote]
The second was those damn Mormon Helping Hands t-shirts... Meanwhile, our SP was almost giddy. He had the PR rep calling newspapers and arranging photo opportunities. We had members excitedly filming people work in hopes that it would make one of those General Conference news reels. Then, the very next week in testimony meeting, person after person got up to testify how god sent the flood in order to activate a member, or bring missionaries into someone's home. It was awful. I refused to wear their shirts. The whole business was dirtier than cleaning out the muck.
[/quote]

100% on the Helping Hand Tabbards - I always feel like a right do-gooder "look at me I'm magnificant" tool, wearing one of those.

As for PR, we've had a member elected to a local political position. I say member but the member has probs been at church thrice in the last year and five times in the last two years, the 'member' probably doesn't publicly self-identify as LDS anymore, yet local leaders are trying to hit up a PR angle

[MoPag]

And just for the record, Christensen's a business guru and used to be, I think, Dean of the Harvard School of Business. Someone with less apathy than I can look it up!

Here is his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_M._Christensen

He actually sounds pretty legit.

In 2011, Forbes called him "one of the most influential business theorists of the last 50 years" in a cover story[14]

What is weird is why he hasn't climbed up to the top of the church ladder. He has been a bishop, and counselor to a mission pres, and an area 70. You'd think the church would have shackled him to BYU at least.

Anywayz: awesome job to Oliver, Lost, Redjay, Corsair and Mormorrisey for dismantling a particularly heinous Ensign article.

[2bizE]

I do not think the LDS church provides any vital role in life. It is not essential. Could we live without the church? Absolutely. What if the LDS church did not exist? There would probably be a different religion we would belong to. We would be blogging about how that religion was ruining our lives and how we need everyone to see what a fraud it is. Which means the problem is religion in general.

[MoPag]

I do not think the LDS church provides any vital role in life. It is not essential. Could we live without the church? Absolutely. What if the LDS church did not exist? There would probably be a different religion we would belong to. We would be blogging about how that religion was ruining our lives and how we need everyone to see what a fraud it is. Which means the problem is religion in general.

I love this^

South Park has a great Trilogy series called: Go God Go. I will provide a link when I get home. Basically, it's a future where there is no God and no religion. And the people have broken off into factions depending on which scientific theories they believe in. So they just literally replace god with science. The main take away is that humans are irrational beings and we will always find ways to form groups and be mean to each other.

[Can of Worms]

2. In the United States, our enormous private sector of charitable works—education, hospitals, care for the poor, and countless other charities of great value—originated with and is still sponsored most significantly by religious organizations and religious impulses.

How much of that enormous private sector is provided by the church (outside of utah)? I see many other churches that are heavily involved in charitable endeavours in the community but ours is not.

3. Western societies are not held together primarily by the overall enforcement of laws, which would be impractical, but most important by citizens who voluntarily obey the unenforceable because of their internal norms of correct behavior. For many, it is religious belief in right and wrong and an anticipated accountability to a higher power that produces such voluntary self-regulation. In fact, religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of Western nations that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing all our freedoms.

The church would have us believe that we only have good values because we are members. We are continually warned about the evils of the world. But I have come to realise that most people are good, ethical people because they believe that it is right, not because their church tells them to be. They know that society functions better when citizens treat each other with respect. There is of course an argument to be made that these values stem from centuries of religious tradition. Did people originally join a religion because they wanted to be taught how to live, or because that religion aligned with their values? Chicken - egg.

4. Along with their private counterparts, religious organizations serve as mediating institutions to shape and temper the encroaching power of government on individuals and private organizations.

I am sorry but I feel the church trying to exert more power over me than any government or private organisation.

5. Religion inspires many believers to render service to others, which, in total, confers enormous benefit on communities and countries.

Refer to chicken - egg thought above. Are charitable people more drawn to religion or does religion produce charitable people?

6. Religion strengthens the social fabric of society. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has taught: “[Religion] remains the most powerful community builder the world has known. … Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history.”

I've worked in fundraising for over 15 years and spent the last few years working with a team focussed on gifts of $1M+. In the charitable sector in my community, Mormons are noticeably absent. They are known as cheap and not civic minded. The reason is obvious to us - all time and treasure goes to the church. It will take more than a few photo ops and matching t- shirts to change the perception of the LDS church in the community. The church needs to demand less of the membership so people have the energy to participate in the broader community.

[moksha]

I think I understand Elder Oaks argument. If religion has the freedom to promote change that benefits humanity, it should also be accorded the freedom to oppose change that benefits humanity. So where Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, and William Wilberforce exist, there should also be their religious counterparts like the Reverend Cotton Mather, Prophet Warren Jeffs, and Pastor Fred Phelps.

[platapus]

New to the new board, I was on the old board under a different name but I like this one better... Just popped into my head when I was thinking of a user name. Anyhow, I found this article to be very interesting about religion and its use in mankind.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... od-or-evil

P.