Atheism V Mormonism- A note to Daniel C. Peterson

Double Talk

Atheists have been the subject of a couple of high profile articles in the Deseret News Mormon Times Section.  The most recent article was by Daniel Peterson.

Trying to make their view seem merely a minor logical extension of my own, several atheistic acquaintances have assured me that there is little difference between us: They just happen to disbelieve in one more god than I do.

Mr. Peterson, We are not trying to make our beliefs a logical extension to yours we are just pointing out that you do not believe the other religions manifestation of god is equal to yours and in fact you have been taught they are false.

They seem to imagine that being a Latter-day Saint entails rejecting all non-Mormon religious experiences and disbelieving every doctrine of every other faith. This, however, is not true.

You are guilty of revisionist history.  The official record shows:

Joseph Smith said, "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

And scripture says this:

The Book of Mormon says, "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).

Given that.  How can you justify saying this:

When Joseph Smith learned that the then-existing Christian churches were corrupt, that didn't mean that they were totally wrong. To say that something is "corrupt" means that it has been damaged. We speak of "corrupted texts" or "corrupted files," intending to say that they have been infected or tainted — not that their original content has been replaced by something completely different.

In fact, many mainstream Christian doctrines were and are substantially correct. There is indeed a God. He has a divine Son who came to earth, atoned for our sins, rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of his Father. Those who taught prayer, preached of the Savior and translated the New Testament during the centuries between the early apostles and the Restoration preserved and transmitted many central gospel truths.

But what about non-Christians? Do they worship false gods?

Jews certainly don't. Believing Jews accept the Old Testament, venerating the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, spoke through the prophet Isaiah and was proclaimed by Jesus (a Palestinian Jew).

According to Brigham Young they do:

"I would rather undertake to convert five thousand Lamanites , than to convert one of those poor miserable creatures whose fathers killed the savior... Yes, I would rather undertake to convert the devil himself, if it were possible... I would say, leave them, and come home, the Lord does not require you to stay there, for they must suffer and be damned... [L]eave them to live and die in their sins and ignorance... [T]hey take pleasure in their wickedness..." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143, 1854)

But what of Islam? Isn't "Allah" a false god? No. According to the Qur'an, Allah created the earth in six days, placed Adam and Eve in Eden, and then inspired prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Sound familiar?

"Allah" is simply the Arabic equivalent of English "God," related to the Hebrew "Elohim." Moreover, Allah is the God not only of Muslims but of all Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews. "In the beginning, (Allah) created the heavens and the earth," reads Arabic Genesis. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (Allah), and the Word was (Allah)," says the Arabic version of John 1:1. "We believe in (Allah), the Eternal Father," says the first Article of Faith in Arabic, "and in his Son, Jesus Christ."

Muslims, Christians and Jews disagree about God, but that doesn't create numerically different gods. My neighbor regards Senator Foghorn as the greatest orator since Daniel Webster; I think he's a noxious windbag. But there is, mercifully, only one Senator Foghorn. Our different opinions don't spawn multiple senators.

There has been less said about Muslims.  But much has been said about dark skinned people and people of other races.  In fact while not officially supported by the official doctrine since the late 70's it is still supported in attitude among a significant number of members.  

But what of the non-Abrahamic religions? Are they too far wrong? It seems presumptuous to declare that mistaken but sincere devotion means nothing to our loving Father in Heaven.

In fact, Christians have been quite willing over the centuries to equate Zeus, the supreme ruler and father of the Greek Gods (the Romans' Jupiter or Jove), with the God of Christian belief. Shakespeare's Juliet chides Romeo from her balcony with a close paraphrase of the pagan Roman poet Ovid: "At lovers' perjuries, they say, Jove laughs." The great medieval Christian poet Dante says that it was Jove who died on the cross ("Purgatorio" 6:118-119).

When the apostle Paul, preaching on Mars Hill, sought to connect with the pagan Athenians (Acts 17:24-28), he identified Zeus with Israel's God: "For in him we live and move and have our being," he taught, quoting the words about Zeus of a sixth-century B.C. Cretan philosopher. "As some of your own poets have said," he continued, citing a third-century B.C. philosopher's verse about Zeus, "'we are his offspring.'"

In the final volume of C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia," a Calormene soldier named Emeth (= Hebrew "truth") has been a sincere worshiper of the false god Tash all of his life. When, at the end, he meets Aslan and recognizes the true God, he expects severe punishment. But Aslan graciously reassures him that "all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me," explaining that, although Emeth had been unaware of it, his honest devotion was actually to Aslan, rather than to Tash. "No service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him."

 The last three quotes paragraphs are comical at best.  Mr. Peterson you are quoting works of fiction as a support for your argument.  The worlds of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and the works of Dante were fantasies.  The world of C.S Lewis' Narnia did not exist and Zeus according to common theological thought was nothing more than an invention of the men who worshiped him.

God's sheep recognize his voice, even when it's in a different language or imperfectly heard. They follow him as best they can and will not lose their reward.

If this last paragraph is true then the plan a salvation is a hoax.  The time and service you demand from followers is a hoax.  Baptism for the dead is a hoax.  You cannot have it both ways.  You cannot claim the as atheists we are wrong and rally the other folks of faith together telling them that you were just kidding about the whole abomination thing.

Here is the reality Mr. Peterson; as we look at the history of the LDS Church with a critical eye the claims made and promises offered appear to be absurdities.  The men who made those claims were even more suspect in character.  We spent years searching for comfort in the plan of salvation and when we discovered the church was not what it purports to be we left.  Not only was our faith no longer in tact but neither was our ability to believe in any god.  Through further investigation we discovered the claims of Islam, Christianity, and Jewish faiths were equally suspect.  We believe in one less god than you do.  You do not hold the gods of other faiths in the same regard as you do your own.  They are not minor doctrinal issues but major chasms in which your members have been taught they are better than the others and they have the only plan of salvation.  The rest are "Whores of the Earth."

I'll admit to being Anti-Mormon if you admit to being Anti-Reason

anti- 
a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words (anticline); used freely in combination with elements of any origin (antibody; antifreeze; antiknock; antilepton).

The problem with using a definition as a broad brush to paint any group or person is that it leads to "binary thinking". More importantly it allows us to dismiss a segment of the population because we don't agree with them, or in the case of this article in today's Mormon Times, because what they say may not be faith promoting.

I agree with the writer on the following:

First of all, we shouldn't call people who simply don't believe in Mormonism "anti-Mormons." We should call them Catholics or Baptists or Muslims or atheists. People who ascribe themselves to faiths or philosophies that contradict Mormonism should not automatically be seen as antagonists. They should be credited with having their own beliefs.

Now, what about people who try to convert Latter-day Saints to their belief systems? Are they anti-Mormons?

No.

The believing Baptist who testifies of his church's doctrine to a Latter-day Saint is trying to do something he believes is constructive. Even if he attempts to point out supposed flaws in Mormon doctrine, if his genuine intent is to save a soul and he maintains a polite, rational tone, I don't think he deserves the anti-Mormon label. After all, should Mormon missionaries be considered anti-Catholics or anti-Protestants?

In the blog-o-sphere "tone" becomes subjective to reader and there is broad license to interpret that tone. My biggest concern with this writing is the permission to exclude from the conversation based upon perception without encouraging the reader to consider evidence, offer evidence of their own or to ask for clarification of meaning and intent.

The line, I believe, that separates non-Mormons from anti-Mormons is motivation. Anti-Mormons are people who put down Mormon beliefs, practices and people simply for the sake of destroying their faith. Not many anti-Mormons would admit that is their primary goal, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

I really think this is a trap. How is this interpreted? If you actively question doctrine and call people on what appears to be bigotry is that anti? When you confront the assertions that atheists are doing the work of Satan as offered by General Authorities is that Anti? When you question church history and the origins of doctrine is that Anti? Is it likely that the above examples will be interpreted as putting down Mormon beliefs for the sake of destroying their faith? Is a journey in reason and critical thinking likely to destroy faith.

For the most part, anti-Mormons should be ignored. But before that can happen, they have to be identified.

In my short tenure as a blogger I have come across as many "militant Mormons". I don't engage in combat blogging which means if I have made an assertion I have a source to back it up if you have a counter point of view I expect the same discipline. However my topics are pointed and not necessarily faith promoting. But I don't think that means I should be ignored (of course I don't that's why I am a blogger). I am of the opinion that the danger in the author's statements is a promotion of the tribalism that has proven to divide cultures in the past and which contiues to be a problem in Utah.

Who threatens which?

sec·u·lar·ism   /sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

Three articles in the last 10 days have appeared in the Deseret News Mormon Times telling readers that secularism is the greatest threat to religion, Mormonism, Catholicism, and life on the planet as we know it.

From the Feb.14th article Secularism is growing obstacle for Mormon Church:

An attorney for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints predicts secularism will be one of the most significant obstacles facing the LDS Church over the coming decade.

William F. Atkin, associate general counsel for the LDS Church, made the prognostication Saturday during an address at the 2010 J. Reuben Clark Law Society Conference on the University of Utah campus.

"When governments become neutral towards religion, we see less and less protection of religion and religious activities," he said. "Secularism in the world is neutral at best towards religions and hostile at worst. We're seeing more and more that it is hostile, not just neutral, towards religion." ....

...."We think there's going to be a tightening now of what kind of entities get tax-exempt status," Atkin said. "Maybe churches are no longer going to be viewed as such a positive influence in society -- therefore (maybe) they're not going to be granted tax-exempt status."

Abroad, secularism is manifesting itself in a wave of anti-discrimination measures in Europe that could, for example, prevent the LDS Church from requiring its employees to adhere to a basic level of personal worthiness and moral conduct.

"We're seeing more and more, particularly in Western Europe, the countries who are very secular are pushing anti-discrimination and not permitting any religious exclusions," he said.

From the Feb. 12th article Gay-marriage battle endangering religious voices - Elder Wickman:

SALT LAKE CITY -- As the battle over same-sex marriage winds its way through the federal courts, the fundamental right to voice religious beliefs in political debates is seriously endangered, said Elder Lance B. Wickman.

Elder Wickman, an attorney for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, made the remarks Thursday as part of the 2010 J. Reuben Clark Law Society Conference at the University of Utah.

"I believe that the greatest challenge faced by the church," Elder Wickman said, "is the challenge to religious liberty that is growing worldwide. ... A battle is looming over the effort to acquire civil social rights at the expense of civil religious rights. This battle, I believe, represents the acceleration of a disturbing slide downward in the law regarding the place of religion in the public square."
....

....Elder Wickman said Perry vs. Schwarzenegger portends to define not just marriage per se but the ground rules for all future political debate as well.

"Perry seeks a court declaration that, as a matter of law, religious views may not be used to justify the denial of a social civil right," he said. "Stated differently, they essentially claim that the voters, from whom all authority in a democracy flows, may not consider religious views and values when deciding these alleged social and cultural civil rights.

"These are serious allegations and represent an arrow directly at the heart not only of traditional marriage but at the place of religion and religious views in the political dialogue of this country."

From the Feb. 24th article MMO: Cardinal's speech set tone for LDS, Catholics:

Cardinal George's words built on that subtext.

"We can and should stand together as one in defense of religious liberty. In the coming years interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience of individuals and religious institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society that work to move religion to a purely private reality.

"At stake is whether the religious voice will be heard in the public square. Our collaborative efforts in this work may include common statements and court testimonies demonstrating principles that are constant with our religious beliefs."

He also said that Latter-day Saints cannot allow public expressions of faith to be relegated to private worship.

The three articles represent the opinions of two religions with abysmal civil rights track records. If left to their own devices not only would we ban gay marriage but we would prevent interracial marriage, keep abused spouses from divorcing their abusers and the progress made in the 60's and 70's civil rights movements would be undone. Unfortunately these regional oppressors are now calling themselves the victims of the neutrally intolerant secular society.

I believe in freedom of religion as much as I believe in freedom from religion. However, I also see religious beliefs similar to our private bedroom habits and believe they are best served when expressed with like minded willing participants not forced upon a nation. To a Catholic, the rituals are comforting; to someone on the outside they are perverse.

Religions, I think can and should serve their flocks. However when they reach out and use their wealth and influence to deny any portion of our society equal rights they should be pushed back and in the case of the LDS Church their tax exempt status should come under scrutiny.

William F. Atkin stated above "Maybe churches are no longer going to be viewed as such a positive influence in society -- therefore (maybe) they're not going to be granted tax-exempt status." If churches are not seen as such a positive influence in the world it is at their own hands. The self righteousness that comes from most pulpits including the LDS churches that puts religion before science, Quantitative measurable out comes behind superstition and hateful biases before compassionate policy should be shunned by our ever growing secular society.

It is religion that has spread propaganda such as the black man is descended from cane and is inferior, women are less than men because they caused Adam to fall, It is a sin to prevent pregnancy, and sex for whatever purpose is mired in sin. This propaganda has resulted in abuse, marginalization and horrible public policy whenever the religious entity has stuck its nose in the business of governing. So yes Mr. Atkin it is questionable as to whether churches are a positive influence in our society. I am with Christopher Hitchens in the belief that "Religion Poisons Everything."