I was thinking a lot this weekend about religion, looking at all of the churches as I drive by, and remembering all of the things I had to do as a Mormon. Aside from the vast amount of money spent on building and maintaining the church building themselves, the sheer number of hours spent worshiping a deity is astounding. I think of the countless hours I have spent over the course of my time in the church, and wish I could have them back to do something of value.

Religion teaches tons of things that you must to to either please God or avoid the wrath of God. That got me thinking about philosophies like Buddhism. Eastern schools of thought seem to be more focused on the individual, and the personal needs of human beings. If I need more peace in my life, I seek for the peace, and the practices that bring me peace, in my own way. There's no one right or wrong way to do anything, and life is a journey of discovery.

Shouldn't religion and spirituality be more about helping people meet their own needs and less about people meeting God's needs?

But standard Western religion IS about the individual. At least it claims to be. They're getting INDIVIDUALS into heaven or keeping INDIVIDUALS out of hell.

I tend to think that religion is similar to culture/government, in that a group of people gets together and decides on the rules of the game of life that everyone will abide by. The main difference is that the rules set forth by government are made by either 1 person, a ruling class, or by the people (depending on the type of government). Culture's rules seem to develop by themselves, and Religion's rules are made up by people but claimed to be from god.

I see it as a way of controlling people in a way. Like Moses was probably sick of all the crap he was putting up with as a leader of a large group of wandering, cranky Hebrews, so he made up 10 rules for everyone to follow in the hopes that it would help people get along. Claiming they were from god added some gravitas to them.

As I always say, the church should be for the people, not the people for the church.


Where oh where did mormonism get it all fucked up and backwards?

Cult! cult!

TSCC got lost from its very beginning based on the con-artist JS. One of the best things in the NT was where Jesus said: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath". TSCC perverted the scriptures and made man as tied to the sabbath as in the OT, even more so in some ways.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2013 06:13PM by rhgc.

I have never regarded worship as something to either get me into heaven or keep me out of hell. Even as a member of TSCC, I abhored the idea that I was earning any points for the CF. I regard worship and scripture study as something I do for its own worth and for the enjoyment of it. The spiritual part of my being enjoys worship - but not of JS or TSCC. Man's nature is of spirit, of mind, and of body. As one understands man, one understands God, not because of LDS doctrine of God having been a man, but of the evolution of man.

I spent a good deal of my life terrified that inside I wasn't good enough, faithful enough, or obedient enough to make it to the CK. I was worried that I didn't belong there and everyone would know it. Sort of like being zapped by those sentinels guarding the entrances to rivers and temples in mythology.

I understand that, twojedis, in that I never bought into the ideas of TSCC it is much easier for me to continue in my beliefs. Never have I ever considered myself failing in real faith or in any way without worth. On the other hand, I have always believed I would get to heaven, though not by any special merit or works of my own. It is not by worship or by anything we do that we will get to heaven. As for hell, I think that some people are really, really evil and I have never been concerned that they may get their just reward. Goodness knows, some of these people are not getting their punishment now.

For our foibles now, I see Christ as our advocate, not as a condemning God, but as having understanding for us. I have yet to meet anyone who is deserving of an eternal reward. I am confident that Christ understands us far better than we even understand ourselves. As we love others, so we are loved, but not based on being conditional. Oh, how I dislike the mormon concept of everything being conditional. I see how the mormon doctrine destroys people. TSCC is not the true church. But that does not throw out the ideals of the New Testament.

I like some of the teachings in the Bible, but I do not believe in Christ any more than I believe in any of the other legendary figures in literature. I agree, though, that Christ would be ashamed of the church that bears his name.

I understand. Christ, however, is not dependent on the stories of the OT. If one considers Christ as the cornerstone and foundation of our faith (contrary to TSCC), and also the completion of the new faith intended from the beginning of time, truly changing religion, there is a new perspective.

The rejection of religion throws out the spiritual nature of man, leaving us only with mind and body. I do not follow the Christ as claimed by TSCC, but the Christ of the NT, not Christ being Jehovah, but Christ as the atoner and part of a godhead, being our advocate, champion if you will, that we, though imperfect, are made perfect and will have eternal life.

The Christ of the NT has a bunch of messed up teachings as well. I don't see why we would need any advocate between us and a loving God, nor why someone would need to die in order for God to forgive us. He is God, right?

An advocate is also known, in common parlance, as a lawyer. It is often said that it is foolish to represent oneself. I'm probably a pretty effective attorney, but I want someone much better to argue my pitiful case at St. Peter's Gate. I'm serious. As for the atonement, one surely recalls the expression: "the law of the Medes and the Persians". What was written could not be undone. Here, the requirement for punishment could not be done away but, just as the OT used a scapegoat, so the NT required the final sacrifice. When we are young it especially seems terrible, unfair, and awful for a God to have his own son die. When one reaches older age, one realizes that one would rather die himself/herself rather than allow one's child to die. The suffering was not just of Christ but also of the father. With this it is understandable. Moism places it all on Christ for "obedience". Wrong. The total picture is one of liberation. Moism (and fundies) would have Christ continuing to suffer. That is wrong doctrine. The suffering is done. Our place was taken. Worship is joyful because we are thankful, not fearful, not still trying to earn something.

So, you are saying that God is so cruel and unkind that we need an attorney to get through? Sounds like a pretty stupid God to worship.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2013 07:25PM by twojedis.

No. God listens. God is not cruel at all, but merciful. Wouldn't you get a little tongue-tied before God? I wouldn't want to have to explain everything as to why I did or didn't do something. The scriptures say that we actually have two sources of advocacy, Christ and the Holy Ghost as a comforter. I need the advocate. Don't you?

Not if he's a loving God, that flies in the very nature of God. If he's so loving and perfect, then he could put us at ease. Instead he's threatening and scary, or so say his prophets, and he sacrificed his son rather than just forgiving us all on his own. Not all that powerful, is he?

True, God set up the law but he set it up such that it had to be fulfilled. He ceded the power to change the law, so that the law had to be answered. God is not threatening though the OT certainly shows that he was. This is part of what is different in the NT. Jehovah of the OT is not Christ, contrary to Mormon doctrine. Did it ever seem a little schizophrenic of Jehovah being also Christ? Or Adam being the father?

Frankly, believing any of it seems schizophrenic to me. God set up the law so that his son had to be killed instead of just being forgiving. He is God, right? Omnipotent? The logic just isn't there.

You said, "God listens. God is not cruel at all, but merciful."

You know no such thing. In fact, if you look around, you can see plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I wonder if some people are so afraid of God they don't want to see puppies with cancer and abused or starving children who pray and die not having a moment of happiness in their lives.

To me, it seems that wanting an advocate between someone and a god also seems to be a position based in fear and helplessness. If someone doesn't fear a god, they don't worry about hiring someone to butter him up because they need comfort.

It's all in the mindset, I suppose. People find what they need.

Most religious manifestations are partisan and sectarian --
that's just their nature.

There are theistic religions which are fairly inclusive and
not domineeringly evangelical -- but they are a small minority.

There are atheistic religions which are even less divisive
and intolerant -- but they are also a relatively small minority.

Moving religion in the direction of less dogma and more
rationality and toleration doesn't seem to be very attractive
to the great masses of population.

I'll give it all another million years, to see how things
shake out here on planet earth. Religion may evolve along
with the human species, to serve better purposes than it
generally does today. But, to change it we must change ourselves.

UD

The evolution of religion can be traced but, like many things, it is not simply a steady progression. The explosion of scientific knowledge is incredible to behold. Religious thought does not progress at the same clip and sometimes reverts to earlier patterns. The very simplistic idea of "restoration of all things" is anathema to human progress.

After finding out the Mormon church is made up it just naturally proceeded to step back and look at Christianty with my newly aquired critical thinking skills.

What I found out is all religion is made up.

Relgion is all about control.

TSCC is uber control on steroids.

Good riddance.

As a general rule, you are probably right. But it does not need to be that way. Religion may also be a liberator. Instead of a load of guilt we, like the pilgrim of Bunyan, may have our load of guilt removed without our having to spend a lifetime doing meaningless endowments, etc. With liberation comes the desire to do good and help others out of love rather than requirement, as volunteers and not as those who get "callings" from the bishop or anyone else. JS read Pilgrim's Progress but instead of liberating people, merely stole from the "City of Desolation".

tofino Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> all religion is made up.
>
...

We can say that about almost all organized human activity.
Birthday parties are made up. The Klu Klux Klan is made up.
Professional wrestling matches are made up.

I suppose there are some real activities and organizations.
Armies at war are not made up -- at least their actions
are very real. A gang rape is a real activity. Maybe a
family picnic can be termed real and not "made up."

What sort of group endeavor do you find worthwhile? Would
a club composed of members who periodically volunteered to
help clean up the environment be OK? It too would be a
made up religion, but at least its effect on the world
would be something more than just silly "made up" stuff.

UD

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reverts to earlier patterns. The very simplistic
> idea of "restoration of all things" is anathema to
> human progress.

This is a point I would love to see elaborated. Resetting, or rebooting to earlier superstitions is unlikely to be progressive. However, cultures and societies do degrade as well as improve over time, so probably there would be some interesting debate. But this is a really good point I think, rather than restoring the Christian world to its Roman roots, don't we want to make progress based on the greater light and knowledge of today, which is mostly from scientific endeavor?

Religion is a way for clever people to lighten the wallets of gullible people.

A trite answer. Religion is also at least an attempt, often, to fulfill the spiritual needs of people. Some, such as TSCC, are after the money and souls of the gullible, but not all churches are.

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A trite answer. Religion is also at least an
> attempt, often, to fulfill the spiritual needs of
> people. Some, such as TSCC, are after the money
> and souls of the gullible, but not all churches
> are.


This line of thinking presumes that we human beings
indeed have "spiritual needs." Yes, I know that many
people speak of such things, but I'm not convinced that
they are real.

Breathing air? That I can agree is a real need.

An infant receiving protection before learning how
to walk and talk? That I can also agree to.

A prisoner in long term solitary confinement needing
interaction with fellow humans? I'm not so sure about that.

A person needing spiritual sustenance or communion?
I'd like to hear more about how that is a real need.

UD

Spirituality is about your relationship with God.
Religion is about control. People who profess to speak for God use religion to control you. A prophet is one who speaks to God for another. You don't need anyone to stand between you and God.

Beautifully said!

But lets not forget, spirituality and God don't always go together. You don't need God to be spiritual.

Two jedis: I have just started dabbling in the Unity movement or New Thought. Its approach to God is not Judeo/Christian, but that God is an energy force, so he is not somewhere out there in Heaven , but in all living things. I wouldn't look at God as being "separate" from us. If you can look at the Bible as a way to teach us things through parables it makes things a lot easier to understand. Everything is not built on a set of guidelines and if we do not follow them we go to some made up place to control the masses. Organized religion was totally made up. You know this, and most people can feel this if they listen to their minds. I have not given up in life after death.....I just know it is not what we were taught.

I haven't given up on that either. I hope for it.

Life/time is the biggest logic problem. Scientists are scrambling to understand it since they were allowed education. They keep going smaller and smaller to understand it and bigger and bigger! But there are those who still cling to a book written when things were way less understood. We know now that Adam and Eve lived in Africa.The first walking primates were our shared ancestor. Humans evolved with all life here on Earth. Earth is our lifeblood. We have no idea why we are here. Everything else is mans invention.I grew up Mormon in Utah county and it took years to unscramble my brain.Best wishes!

As I read your OP it sort of dawned on me that I don't think I ever truly felt like I was worshiping anyone or anything in the Mormon church. It sort of felt more like a treadmill of requirements. 1.go to your meetings 2. attend the temple 3. fulfill your callings 4. pay your tithes and offerings 5. serve your mission 6. say your prayers 7. read your B. of M. 8. do your family history 9. and in the olden days we got a little break to enjoy activities rather than cleaning toilets. I don't remember anyone ever calling sacrament or sunday school "worshiping". How did I miss that?

I struggle with the question:

"Shouldn't religion and spirituality be more about helping people meet their own needs and less about people meeting God's needs?"

The reason is that the question implies that religion could or should be reformed, which is a notion I reject. It is why I can't agree with these groups that are trying to change Mormon culture, such as this woman petitioning for the Priesthood, or LGBT groups that push for reform within the Church, etc. The foundation of religion is a theological premise of some sort, that justifies, either implicitly or explicitly, a literalness of divine authority. If you invalidate that premise, for example, the restoration through Joseph Smith, then the foundations of Mormonism crumble. Why would it be important to reform any organization that is established on such an invalid foundation. If religion stopped being about God and coercion through the exploitation of uncertainty, and started being more about social issues...then it would stop being religion and would just be called philanthropy.