The Baby Jesus brings your Christmas presents...?

It's funny how the Christmas legends vary slightly from one culture to the next. In the US, the story of Saint Nicholas (who traditionally gave small presents on December 6) morphed into "Santa Claus" (via the Dutch "Sinterklaas") -- and moved some of his legendary gift-giving antics to Christmas Eve. Meanwhile, some cultures also have a legendary "Father Christmas" (a.k.a Père Noël or Babbo Natale) who has his own traditions, but sometimes simply merges with the American Santa Claus. But in some German-speaking regions, there's another legend that I find amazingly strange: the Christmas gifts are brought by the Baby Jesus (Christkind).

The Christkind doesn't have quite as elaborate a mythology as Santa Claus, but he is supposed to magically bring the Christmas tree and the gifts during the night on Christmas Eve. I've always been kind of curious about how this works, and I had the opportunity to ask some Austrian friends about it the other day. These friends have kids who are a little younger than ours, and still believe that the Baby Jesus brings their presents.

I explained to them the reason the tradition stuck me as so odd. In the US, there's a whole angst-ridden rite-of-passage when the kid eventually figures out that Santa Claus is just made-up, and then there's a big question (especially in religious households) of whether the kid will extrapolate and start wondering about Jesus. But in Austria, Switzerland, and southern Germany, when the kid figures out that the whole "Christkind" thing was just a story, put-on by their own parents... Well, you kind of skip that intermediate step of having to notice the parallel...

"It's European efficiency," laughed my Austrian friend.

But, seriously, if any believing Christians practice this custom, that has got to be one surreal discussion when the kids figure it out.

"That part about angels announcing Jesus's birth in a manger, that's totally real. The part about the Baby Jesus bringing you presents on Christmas? OK, we admit we were making that up and faking it. But the stuff about Jesus walking on water and rising from the dead? That part is totally real..."

The Mormon Jungle: "Latter-Day Cipher," by Latayne Scott

With its death oaths and blood atonement, Mormon cultural history provides plenty of raw material for a murder mystery. Remember how Brigham Young decreed death on the spot for interracial mixing of seed? Did you ever wonder what would happen if someone decided to carry that out?

If so, look no further than Latayne Scott's Latter-Day Cipher. It's an exciting mystery as well as an intriguing trip through Mormonism's dark history. As a fan of portraits of different cultures, I particularly liked how the author contrasts Utah Mormon culture with the Tennessee Christian heritage of some of the characters. The book also introduced me to a fun bit of Mormon history trivia (that I'm surprised I'd never heard of before, given my fondness for invented languages): the Deseret Alphabet.

This book is probably the most "anti-Mormon" work of fiction I've ever read, aside from A Study in Scarlet. I'm a little wary about making a statement like that because I think that the "anti-Mormon" label is extremely problematic, especially applied to literature (see It’s Time to Play: Anti-Mormon… Or Not?). However, in this case, the author has explicitly compared the work to The Jungle and Uncle Tom's Cabin (in terms of using fiction to illustrate the dangers of Mormonism), so I think it makes sense to analyze the author's criticisms of Mormonism. I'll tell you my reactions, and please feel free to re-analyze my analysis. ;^)

The book's central point about Mormonism is that the bad parts of Mormonism's past are smoothed over, but are still there, right under the surface. The author's key metaphor is that of a the gas fumes that still linger around the site of a plane crash that took place in the distant past. In Mormon terms, this corresponds to doctrines that are simply deleted from one edition of a manual to the next (see, for example this post on the new Gospel Principles).

This is a very real problem within Mormonism, which I think the author illustrates well: When a Mormon leader teaches doctrine X, and then doctrine X is not mentioned (neither confirmed nor disavowed) in General Conference or any official LDS church publication for several decades, that creates a situation where some Mormons are still actively teaching X as doctrine while other Mormons claim that it's a pernicious lie to suggest that Mormons believe X. And both groups -- those that believe X and those that think essentially no Mormons believe/teach X -- are innocently honest and sincere in their (incompatible) beliefs. We've discussed this problem at MSP in the post Why not denounce Brigham Young’s racist statements?

To use the popular metaphor, defining Mormon doctrine is like nailing jello to a wall. No matter what you say about Mormonism on the Internet, some Mormon will come by and say "That's not true!" And, while each individual Mormon commenter is sincerely trying to clarify the given point of doctrine, the aggregate of all of these conflicting claims is really, really, really annoying for an outsider (or even an insider) who is sincerely trying to figure out what Mormons believe.

The lingering doctrine that Latayne Scott dwells on most is blood atonement. Some major plot elements hinge on the idea that some Mormons might feel they need to be bloodily killed to atone for their sins. For example, a Mormon who sinned by drinking and driving, and accidentally killed someone as a result, might believe that he has to atone for that sin with his own blood in order to be saved. As someone who was raised Mormon, I find this incredibly bizarre and far-fetched. Most modern mainstream Mormons have never heard of "blood atonement", much less believe in it. And when you read about blood atonement from the days in which it was practiced, it seems a lot more like a threat to frighten "apostates", not something people would ever think they require themselves. I would suspect that some people who carried out the "blood atonement" felt they were doing their victims a favor (in accordance with Brigham Young's famous sermon on it, immortalized in the Journal of Discourses), but I'd be very surprised if anyone, ever seriously believed they needed to be on the receiving end of Mormon "blood atonement". (There's one claimed case mentioned in the Wikipedia entry, but that one looks a little suspicious.)

That said -- I as explained above -- one Mormon's experience isn't a good measure of what Mormons (in general) believe. For all I know, maybe some congregations are still teaching blood atonement, particularly in the Mormon fundamentalist churches (which figure prominently in Latayne Scott's book).

I suspect that the reason for the focus on blood atonement in this book isn't just because of the doctrine's deadly potential for abuse -- it's also because it's such a terrible heresy for Christians to suggest that anyone would atone for their own sins under any circumstances (as opposed to relying on Christ's atonement). In my personal opinion, this book suffers from the usual bias that Mormonism is wrong because it contradicts Evangelical Christianity. That's obviously not the only problem the author has with Mormonism, but I get the strong sense that the author sees it as the root problem.

One point in particular stood out as being typical of a Christian take on Mormonism. One character (who was raised Mormon) stops believing in Mormonism because she's upset by the doctrine that Heavenly Father was human and had a father. The character wanted a God who is far above all that. Again, as someone raised Mormon, I find this scenario bizarre and alien. To me, there's nothing strange or upsetting about the idea that God is a "Heavenly Father" who had his own "Heavenly Father." When the character gets upset about this doctrine out of the blue, it was (to me) as though she'd suddenly become disappointed that her parents have their own parents, instead of there being one true set of parents for everyone. (Note: I'm an atheist, but I strongly disagree with the belief that Christian monotheism is more natural or logical than polytheism, see here). By coincidence, another post appeared in the Bloggernacle just the other day (here) about how some people find the Mormon concept of an embodied parent-God deeply spiritually appealing.

I know, it's fiction, so anything is possible. And since I have an example in my blogroll of someone who was Mormon yet felt profoundly drawn to pagan-style polytheism (see here), it's clear that sometimes people do make this sort of dramatic shifts. Still, you shouldn't bank on it, and I feel like the book illustrates the standard misconception: You want to believe that other people -- deep down -- know that your concept of God makes more sense than their own concept of God. But it's just not the case.

So, overall, the book is engaging as a murder mystery, and -- as a warning story to illustrate the dangers of Mormonism -- at least it raises some interesting discussion points.

Note that the author will be give a talk about this book at the 2009 Exmormon Foundation Conference.

Heaven and Hell in Bern, Switzerland

Things were so much simpler in the olden days. When the populace is largely illiterate, and the church fathers (et al) want to keep the peasants in line, a picture is worth a thousand words:

My biggest problem with Biblical morality

I know some of you are probably going "Oh, please, where to begin???" But I do have a place where I'd like to begin: the book of Joshua.

In a nutshell, God decides that He'd like to give a wonderful "promised land" to His chosen people. I imagine that -- being God -- He could have used His omnipotent powers to turn the wilderness into a land flowing with milk and honey. Or perhaps He could have anticipated this and reserved a wonderful land for them (by guarding it with cherubim or something). Instead He chose to give them a land that was already inhabited: all the recipients had to do was massacre the inhabitants, every man, woman, and child. What a wonderful gift!

This story looks like a tale from a pagan polytheistic paradigm where the one tribe's God happened to be demonstrating that He's more powerful than the other tribe's God. But let's suppose this really is a tale of an act performed by the one and only God of all humanity. Imagine a child in one of the less-favored tribes -- terrified by the violence and pillage going on all around her -- desperately praying "Heavenly Father, please save my mommy and daddy and me!" and receiving as an answer "Sorry, I can't help you. The privilege of killing you and your family is a special gift that I've given to someone who will be arriving at your house shortly."

To me, this is far worse than the many instances in the Bible where God Himself kills people because this story teaches a deadly lesson: Check your conscience at the church door because God may command you to perform an act of unspeakable evil, and when He does, it is good and righteous to follow His orders whatever they may be.

To any Christian who says, "Oh, that's just the Ooooold Testament -- starting from Jesus, God is all peace-and-love," I'd like to ask the following:

Is this the same God you worship or isn't it? Do you believe He did this, or at least OK'ed this story to go in His holy book? If Jesus really changed things by fulfilling the old law, then please show me the Bible verse where God says "Remember when I told you to massacre the Hittites? And the Girgashites? And the Amorites? And give Me their treasure? In fact, that wasn't righteous at all, that was evil..."

I'm somewhat less worried about Christians who simply don't realize that this is in the Bible or just never really thought about it. But I am more disturbed by educated Christians who attempt to justify and rationalize this, and ask us to "look at it in context." Let me be very clear: There is no context where genocide is right. Even if God is standing right in front of you offering you eternal paradise as a reward for murder and hellfire if you refuse. There may be just causes for going to war, but "I want their land and my God wants their treasure" is not among them.

Now I realize that this harsh post appears to fly in the face of my usual claim of wanting to foster mutual understanding between believers and unbelievers. But this point bothers me quite a lot and presents a stumbling block in my own comprehension of the Christian mindset. (Same for the Jewish mindset and the Muslim mindset, by the way, if they also see this as a story of righteousness.) The whole story seems so incongruous with the ethics of the believers I know, and I'm at a loss to imagine what could possibly be going through their minds as they're reading it in their Bibles.

Does it matter that prayer doesn't work?

If you believe that "The Lord will do His will" regardless of what you pray for, it's weird to imagine you'd see prayer as comforting. Yet weirdly it seems like it is.

Please read my new post about this over on Main Street Plaza: Does it matter that prayer doesn’t work?

Harry Potter vs. Jesus

I hate to feel I need to put a "spoiler warning" on this: Really, if you haven't read the last book by now and you're sensitive about having the ending spoiled, the Internet is not a safe place for you at the moment...

For a universe defined by magic, Harry Potter's is surprisingly unmagical. The magic in his world allows tons of fun, imaginative, and unexpected possibilities, yet it seems to behave like a force of nature that can be studied, understood, and even researched in a scientific way (with Dumbledore writing papers on his work on the uses of dragon blood and the like). Some wizards are more powerful and/or more skilled than others, but there's no hint of a higher power or purpose any more than electricity or gravity might point to an ultimate purpose. Rowling even raises amusing questions about whether some magic is pseudo-magic (divination, Lovegood's work) when the evidence of its effectiveness is less conclusive.

Then there's the question of death. One of the themes of the Harry Potter series seems to be the virtue of accepting the finality of death. Rowling uses a Biblical quote about death being the last enemy to conquer, but attempting to conquer death was clearly the problem. Nowhere does the story praise the quest for immortality: lingering and continuing in spirit form after your time is up is shown as inability to achieve closure and move on. That's why I knew Dumbledore wouldn't come back like Obi Wan Kenobi to guide Harry at a critical moment or to save him.

All of these themes make Harry Potter a remarkably skeptic-friendly fantasy. The series is far more atheistic than His Dark Materials, a critically-acclaimed fantasy trilogy written by a bona fide atheist (see my discussion of atheist themes in Pullman's work which includes some further comparison of Rowling's style and Pullman's).

However, J. K. Rowling self-identifies as Christian. She is rich, powerful, and popular enough that she can basically get away with saying anything she wants to at this point, thus it seems reasonable to take her at her word and not try to come up with proofs that she's a closet atheist or something like that, no matter how tempting it may be.

So, to double-overcompensate for my pro-atheist bias, today I will ask the obvious Christian book critic question: Is Harry Potter's death scene a re-telling of the Jesus story?



I'm not going to try to prove the case either way, just throw out some ideas and let you decide. As a control, I'll compare these two stories to two other famous self-sacrificing-nonpermanent-death scenes from popular culture: It's a Wonderful Life and Star Trek II. (If you haven't seen these, George Bailey tries to kill himself so that his family will have the money from his life insurance policy and Spock steps into an area of deadly radiation contamination to fix the warp drive so the ship can escape in time.)

1. It had to be the hero in person, not someone else:
JC: yes, for some reason theologians can explain better than I can...
HP: yes, because he had some part of Voldemort's soul.
IAWL: no, nobody really had to die at all -- all they needed was some money.
ST2: not really, somebody else with similar skills and abilities could have done the same thing.

2. The hero was betrayed by a friend:
JC: yes, however the story indicates that Jesus knew it was going to happen and allowed it, thus their relative power levels leaves the betrayal question rather ambiguous.
HP: yes, and it was a difficult blow for Harry when he realized that his trusted friend Dumbledore had been grooming him for the slaughter all along.
IAWL: sort of: the problem arose when Uncle Billy handed $8000 of the bank's money to the enemy (named Potter, coincidentally...), but it was an accident.
ST2: no, Spock acted alone. His longtime friend/rival Dr. McCoy attempted to stop him and failed.

3. The hero was perfect:
JC: yes
HP: no
IAWL: not entirely, but he was remarkably virtuous.
ST2: perfectly logical.

4. The hero is entirely dead before coming back:
JC: yes, and this is an important component of the story: Jesus had to actually die in order to conquer death, so it wouldn't have worked for him to be very, very close to death and pull through.
HP: no, Harry had a "near death experience" which the text jokingly indicates was all in his head.
IAWL: no, George had a NDE similar to Harry's where he got to analyze his situation.
ST2: yes, Spock had a funeral and his corpse was shot out into space before his spirit was reunited with his body. Another point of similarity with the Jesus story is that in both cases it's not entirely clear the resurrection was part of the original story as opposed to having been added later.

5. After his death experience, the hero continues his life as before:
JC: no, Jesus miraculously appeared to some followers a few times, but his death scene ended his everyday life.
HP: yes, he continued as before, grew up, raised a family, etc.
IAWL: yes, but maybe he appreciated his life a bit more.
ST2: yes, he even went on to appear in several more films. He may have made a joke line here and there about having been dead, but his experience doesn't even stand out as a turning point in the Star Trek universe.

6. The story describes the pain of the hero's decision:
JC: yes, Jesus was extensively tortured and asked God if he could get out of it.
HP: yes, Harry contemplated how much he will miss the joys of life.
IAWL: not really, George's choice comes off as a rash act of desperation and despair.
ST2: no, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." The choice is the logical one, and that's good enough for Spock.

So what do you think? Is Harry Jesus? Is Spock?

Anyone have any further points of comparison or other stories that could be added to this list?

shockingly questionable speculations about Jesus by yours truly...

Since my post for this lovely Monday morning is full of musings about Jesus and Joseph Smith, I decided to post it over on Main Street Plaza instead of here: enjoy.

In other non-religion around the interweb news, be sure to have a look at the latest Humanist Symposium over at the Green Atheist!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to Harry Potter. Dang this one is engrossing. I wasn't planning to read this one right away (since I'm crazy busy and don't have time to drop everything for a book), but my husband went out and bought a copy first thing Saturday morning and had it read before making dinner Saturday evening. So when he put it down I said "Well, I'll just read a little tiny bit..." And you know how that goes...

Jesus and the death penalty

Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ was not merely innocent, but was actually perfect. Yet he was tried and executed by the state.

I realize that a lot of Christians oppose the death penalty on principle. However, it seems like Christian opposition to the death penalty should be essentially universal, given that they believe the state can make such a colossal blunder that not only random innocent people -- but in fact the most innocent person of all -- might be wrongly put to death.

So today I'm going to try to guess what reasoning allows some Christians to support the death penalty despite their God's unfortunate experience with it:

* Those Romans were barbarians who didn't have the idea of giving people a fair trial or concepts like "presumed innocent until proven guilty," etc. We don't need to worry about such errors happening today.
* Jesus was executed for political reasons because there was an angry mob clamoring for his death. That's totally unlike the situation of any death-row inmates today.
* It was actually a good thing that Jesus was executed because he died for all our sins. Therefore the death penalty is good.
* The death penalty is part of God's plan. If He didn't want innocent people like Jesus and others getting executed by the state, He'd use His omnipotent powers to put a stop to it.
* Jesus's example clearly shows that even if innocent people are occasionally executed, it all gets sorted out correctly when they get to heaven.
* Jesus was executed for claiming to be king. Considering that He really did claim to be king (in a sense), the conviction was fair and just.
* Jesus was God. Things that happened to Him have absolutely no relation to things that happen to other people.

What do you think? Did I guess it, or is there some other explanation that I missed?

The Good News about Atheists!: Hemant Mehta's I Sold My Soul on eBay

I have set out on a mission of my own, if you will, to show the world the friendly face of atheism. I would love to meet more friendly Christians. And so would every atheist I know.

-- Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta isn't just a friendly atheist, he's the friendly atheist. And since he snagged the title of "friendly atheist" first, all of the other friendly atheists have to be more specific when choosing their own titles (for example I'm "the friendly American exmormon atheist mom living in France," whew! and I hope there won't be too many people fighting me for this coveted position!). I thought about challenging Hemant to a duel over the title "the friendly atheist." Just for the irony of doing it. Then I thought "Nah, I'll just review his book instead."

I Sold My Soul on eBay isn't quite what I was expecting when I first picked it up. The title -- though catchy -- is a little misleading. I'd assumed Hemant had actually auctioned off his soul as a stunt along the lines of "the blasphemy challenge" or like the ex-Mormons who have attempted to sell temple secrets on eBay. But from following Hemant's blog, I should have realized that sort of thing is the opposite of his style.

What Hemant actually auctioned off was the opportunity to send him to church. Like many atheists, he was curious to learn more about religion rather than just dismissing it out of hand, and he figured an eBay auction would be a fun way to get in contact with someone who's motivated to introduce religion to an atheist. This book is the distillation of what Hemant learned from about a year's worth of church attendance at a variety of Christian churches as a result of his eBay auction.

I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith through an Atheist's Eyes is a book addressed to Christians, full of constructive critiques and strategies for making their services more engaging, especially for young adults who don't normally attend church. It has lots of helpful advice on what approaches appeal to non-Christians (and/or non-churchgoers) instead of putting them off.

The book covers the large-to-mega church category more thoroughly than any other type, and I must confess that it was a bit of a challenge to me to generate a whole lot of enthusiasm for them, even given Hemant's lively analysis. I felt a little like how I'd feel if a market researcher showed me a row of giant, gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s and asked me which ones had the most pleasing shape or most comfy ergonomic interior when I'd really rather be discussing strategies for improving public transportation. That probably sounds pretty rich coming from someone who's an avid supporter of Mormon literature (including giving serious advice to LDS authors for making faith-promoting works more effective). But at least with the Mormon lit community, I can claim I'm rooting for a legitimate underdog. Reading about these stadium-sized churches with tens of thousands of members situated on beautiful multi-building campuses, I kept thinking "Sheesh, these guys are the last people on the planet who need help with their marketing..." But that's how friendly Hemant Mehta is -- he's interested in helping out wherever he sees room for improvement.

Hemant's advice seems quite sound, and will likely be useful to those pastors who read his book. My main critique of his critique is that (aside from a few remarks about charity work) Hemant's focus is almost entirely on the church service itself, so of course the biggest churches with the resources to put on a fantastic show come off the best. Yet when he talks about his childhood faith (Jain), most of his positive associations revolve around the fact that his family was part of a small group of families who shared a long-term bond, meeting in each other's houses until they had built up enough members and resources to build their own temple. Hemant doesn't really discuss whether small churches might be more effective than mega-churches at creating this type of community bond and/or creating a sense of community with the local neighborhood. However, when comparing a large number of different churches, it's very difficult to compare what it might be like to be a long-term member of each one. In terms of what is reasonable to cover in such a survey (namely what sorts of things will inspire a one-time visitor to want to come back) he's got a lot of great ideas.

Hemant also helps Christians with their outreach by explaining the atheist's perspective. When approaching an unfamiliar person, nothing is more of a turn-off than making it clear that you're mentally squeezing that person into some wrong and insulting stereotype. Hemant gives a clear and friendly explanation of how the atheist's perspective contrasts with the Christian perspective. In my opinion, this is where the book really shines -- you can see that Hemant is sincere about wanting to foster understanding and dialog, so he takes the Christian point of view seriously and approaches it respectfully when explaining how his point of view is different.

I would definitely recommend this book for any Christian who is serious about wanting to reach out to atheists by understanding the atheist's point of view. But since I probably have more atheist readers than Christian in readers, I'll bet many of you are asking yourselves "Okay, but what's in it for the atheist reader?" For the atheist reader there are three things:

1. Every time I've visited a service of an unfamiliar religion I've learned something from it. Even though Hemant isn't addressing you, you can learn something from looking over his shoulder (so to speak) as he's attending these services.

2. We've all heard about how atheists are the most hated and mistrusted minority in America. Well, what are we going to do about it? We're going to get out there and say to our friends and neighbors "Hi, I'm so-and-so, and I'm a member of your community and an ordinary person -- not the sort of bogeyman you might imagine atheists to be..." Hemant Mehta sets a great example of how to keep your tone positive and constructive when talking to Christians so you can help people see the friendly face of atheism.

3. You can use this book itself in your bridge-building efforts. How many of you have gotten a gift from a (well-meaning) Christian friend or relative that was a Bible or other devotional materials? Or one of those books that tries to poke holes in evolutionary theory so that you'll be convinced that a supernatural explanation is more likely than a natural one? All of you, right? ;^) Well, rather than getting pissed-off because they just don't get it, help them to get it by giving this book as a return gift. Or proactively send it to family members if you're one of the many atheists who has Christian relatives who don't understand you.

This is the one book I would recommend for atheists to give as a gift to Christian friends and relatives. It's a friendly message from an atheist to a Christian that doesn't say "Here's why I'm right and you're wrong," but instead says "Here's how we can understand each other and get along."

Modern Baal worship??? Um, is that a joke?

I probably shouldn't be giving publicity to Chick Publications by linking to them, but I was just looking over some of these the other day, and I can hardly believe anyone could think this stuff is right. It's not just that they're hateful and offensive -- they're just so mind-bogglingly wacky...

If I were still a believing Mormon, I'd be tempted to take this as a compliment coming from these guys, particularly the thing about Mormonism being a combination of Judaism and Catholicism. Because when the Chick Publications people say you're like the Catholics, you know they really care -- there ain't nobody these guys hate like they hate the Catholics!!!

Just looking at this list I found, it looks like they've got at least ten different tracts to explain that the Catholic Church is the church of Satan, including the fabulously-named made to be a "B" horror flick: Deaaaaath Cookie!!! Mwahahahaha!!!

The one that amazes me most though is The Deceived. When I read the synopsis ("Exposes Islam as a conspiracy of the Catholic church and, by proxy, Satan"), I thought the synopsis writer had to exaggerating or something. Nope. That's really what's in that one. The impressive part isn't so much the efficiency of it (insults both Muslims and Catholics in one stroke!) as the creativity of it. I mean, how would you even come up with such a thing?

It looks like they've written seven tractfulls of holy rebukes for Muslims and five for homosexuals. But aside from the one about evolution, I only found one that seemed directed at atheists. So I guess we atheists are down in the small potatoes category with the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Sheesh, even the Masons warranted two!!! Oh, well... ;-)

Polytheism vs. Monotheism + Omnipotence

While learning about classical mythology at school, I was taught that these pagan religions are "primitive" (compared to our modern monotheistic religions).

But are they?

This question has always kind of bugged me. It's my impression that the pagan polytheistic beliefs had a certain logic to them that was lost in the transition to monotheism.

Monotheism seems to go hand-in-hand with belief that God is omnipotent, so to simplify things I'll group monotheism and God's omnipotence as a single belief. Feel free to dispute this connection in the comments. :D

Right off the bat, true omnipotence is as self-contradictory as "the set of all sets" (in Mathematics). However, most believers agree that God doesn't really need to create an immovable object (that is so immovable that it can't even be moved by God). So I assume the solution to this conundrum is to say "it's not that God can do anything at all, just anything within reason..."

But even if we ignore this paradox, the idea that there might be a bunch of different supernatural beings -- with different spheres of influence and different goals -- seems to correspond to our chaotic world a lot better than the idea that the world is run by one guy who can do anything (within reason) and actually has some sort of plan...

Then there's the question of followers. If I understand correctly, the pagan gods liked to have followers give them sacrifices because, well, sacrifices are tasty and/or they increase the particular god's strength or something like that.

On the other hand, the unique, omnipotent God likes to have followers worshiping Him because...... ?????

(A tangent for the Christians: Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus in order to forgive His children/creations of the flaws He created in them? Did He just want to do it that way? If not, is He omnipotent or what?)

My goal here isn't to offend people or mock people's beliefs. I am completely serious when I say that as a Mathematician (sort of), I see more logic and internal consistency to a polytheistic system than to a monotheistic/omnipotent system. However it's very possible that it's just that I haven't heard or considered all of the arguments in monotheism's favor.

If any of you monotheists have an argument I haven't heard or an alternate take on any of what I've said above, please post a comment.

p.s. to LDS readers: I realize that Mormonism has a system that isn't quite monotheistic yet is also different from pagan-style polytheism. I am particularly interested in getting a (faithful) LDS perspective on monotheism-vs-polytheism, and not to mock it or shoot it down. I'm genuinely curious as to what is a typical current LDS take on this subject might be.

The Republicans' deal with the devil

I just got back from a four-day weekend in Brittany -- another big family Catholic wedding -- where I had a fantastic time!!! I'm planning to tell you all about it, but it will take me a few days to write it up.

In the meantime, for your reading pleasure, I'd like to highlight a series of articles that was posted as a comment here recently:

Brad Hicks, a graduate of a Fundamentalist Christan Academy (High School), wrote an interesting five-and-a-half part series arguing that the theology of the right-wing-theocracy-promoting Republicans is the opposite of what Jesus taught, indeed is closer to Satanism.

Christians in the Hand of an Angry God: Part 1
Christians in the Hand of an Angry God: Part 2
Christians in the Hand of an Angry God: Part 3
Christians in the Hand of an Angry God: Part 4
Christians in the Hand of an Angry God: Part 5
epilogue

Bonus: The Evangelical pastor who wouldn't preach the Republican party line.

This series of articles is focused on Christian Fundamentalists (doesn't address Mormonism), so since mine is an LDS-interest blog, I'll just add a minor Mormon-related comment:

In the grand Christan debate of grace-vs-works, Mormons lean heavily towards the "works" end of the spectrum, whereas modern Fundamentalists and Evangelicals lean so far in the grace direction that (if I understand their position correctly) they argue that -- aside from accepting Jesus as your savior -- nothing you do has any relevance to your salvation. The author of these articles argues that this extremist grace position ignores important teachings of Christ from the gospels. Of course he also argues that the type of works Jesus requires for salvation involve feeding the poor, not all of those other commandments the Mormons are so fond of...

Then, for fun, let's look at a question from the antipode on the world of American politics and religion: Are outspoken atheists screwing things up for the Democrats? This blogger says no, go have a look for yourself. :D

Religion and getting along...

This blog is currently passing through the constellation of talking about Mormonism. So for those of you who are bored of Mormonism, I'll ask you to kindly bear with me until it passes. ;-)

I want to make it clear, however, that this is not a proselyting blog. I'm not shy about stating my conclusions and beliefs, but I'm not here to tell you that you need to agree with me.

Well, that's not quite accurate...

There's one idea I am promoting, which is that people of different belief systems should try to understand each other and get along. Since we all have to live together in this lovable, mixed-up world, why not live and let live? So I warn you in advance that I'll be trying to convince you of that philosophy. ;-)

You may have noticed that I'm also actively working to build up and encourage a network of exmormon blogs, which I like to call "Outer Blogness." You might think that this is inconsistent with my insistence that this isn't a proselyting blog since some (not many, but a couple) blogs on the list are written with the express purpose of challenging Mormons' faith in hopes that they will leave Mormonism.

My excuse is that I feel that in order to understand people, it's valuable to look at things from all different perspectives, including perspectives different from your own. That's one of the reasons why I've included some of my favorite LDS blogs in my sidebar as well.

The LDS blogs are kind of fun -- I find a lot of their conversations intriguing. And it's not as though the day you conclude Mormonism isn't all it's cracked up to be you suddenly no longer have anything in common with your LDS friends or anyone else in that familiar culture.

Of course I have to watch my step over on that side of blog space. Here on the exmo blogs, I figure I can post whatever the hell I please as a comment (you guys have maybe picked up on this), but over there, I'm a little like the wicked witch of the West (or East?) -- outside of my realm I have to be careful that nobody drops a house on me. ;-)

I'm actually kind of curious as to what Mormons think of this blog. I'm pretty sure I have a few LDS readers although they hardly ever comment. Of course the worst offenders in terms of not commenting are the Estonians! Ever since I posted here about wanting to go to Estonia and then write a book about my hilarious adventures there, I periodically get visits from IP addresses in Estonia, clicking through blog searches on the word "Estonia." I've gotten quite a number of them, but they never comment! So I have no idea what they think of my amusing plan to hang out with them and visit and, y'know, stay at their house and everything.

Hey you, Estonian reading this! Yes, I mean you! Please leave a comment! Thank you.

Anyway, back to "Outer Blogness": I like grouping people who have followed all different paths after leaving Mormonism because there are so many different possibilities, and it's clear that those who have chosen one path often understand followers of other paths as little if not less than they understand the Mormons. So there's some work to be done even within this motley little blog network.

As an example, in the comments of this post, "Fie to Kolob" offers a dismissive theory for why so many exmos are atheists. (Remember that Fie is the guy whose attitude towards Mormons was -- to my taste -- a little too close for comfort with the Mormon "love the sinner, hate the sin", attitude towards homosexuals, and he responded by assuring me that the way to show love for Mormons and homosexuals alike is to break them of their foolish misguidedness and save them for Jesus.)

Similarly, every now and then I hear the lament of how tragic it is that all of these nonreligious exmos were raised Mormon because the fact that this bad religion (Mormonism) is the only religion they know has prejudiced them against good religions! Personally I find this claim to fall at about the same point on the respectful-vs-insulting scale as the LDS claim that I just want the church to be false so I can have lots of sex and booze.

Fortunately, all of these misunderstandings can be easily cleared up by the miracle of the Internet. Around here, you're never more than a click away from quite a lot of nonreligious exmos, so if there's any confusion about why they left organized religion completely, you can just ask them directly.

From my perspective, once you have the idea to turn the eye of scrutiny on religion, no organized religion can stand up to it. For myself, I can't see saying "Joseph Smith meeting an angel? Impossible!!! But Jesus walking on water? That totally happened."

However, I know that many people see the evidence for Jesus' supernatural claims to be very different from the evidence for Joseph Smith's, and I recognize that there is evidence in support of this position. Also, many people of faith believe that God has confirmed to them that Jesus was truly divine and Joseph Smith was a fraud, and I really can't judge that claim because I'm not in on anyone else's conversations with God.

And remember that Christian and atheist/agnostic are not the only choices out there!!! The Freeway Overpass contains some beautiful insights about Wicca and other spiritual paths.

So I'm not going to be sitting any of you down on my virtual psychiatrist's couch to explain what's wrong with you that makes you not agree with me. ;-)

As far as I'm concerned, we've all looked at the evidence and came to different conclusions. And that's okay. You can't expect to agree with everyone or even completely agree with anyone 100% on all points. And that's why I think it's important to try to live together in peace and harmony.

A good example of cooperating to increase mutual understanding is Gunner's "Carnival of the Veil" (latest installment here). This carnival leans a little bit towards the religious end of the exmo spectrum, but Gunner -- with his characteristic wit and wisdom -- is careful to link not only to examples of exmos who have found fulfillment and happiness in their new religion but also to exmos who have found fulfillment and happiness in having no religion as well.

So happy Sunday to everyone, whatever your plans for the day may be!!! :D

Jewish kids at Christmas...

For me, growing up as I did in an Orthodox Jewish household, this was surely part of my fascination for Christmas itself, that magical season that was always beckoning, at school and in the streets, only to be withheld each year by the forces of religion and family. (I once decided that Christmas must mean even more to America's Jewish children than to its Christian ones.)

-- Stephen Nissenbaum



I can't decide whether it's ironic or weirdly appropriate that The Battle for Christmas -- probably the most fascinating and thought-provoking book on the history of American Christmas traditions -- was written by a Jew.

On the other end of the spectrum, one of my best friends from high school -- a girl who was from a mixed-faith family but who strongly identified with her Jewish heritage -- seemed to think that it was kind of stupid and annoying that her Lutheran father would put up a Christmas tree in their house every year.

My impression from my various Jewish friends is that whatever their opinion of Christmas, it's hard to be totally indifferent towards it.

It's a complicated situation, but I think everyone can understand some of the emotions involved for the kids -- the mixed feelings of wanting to be true to your traditions and people while on some level feeling like it might be nice to join in what's going on in the outside world instead of having to be different all the time.

I'd like to use this as a metaphor to illustrate the mixed feelings Mormons have towards the symbol of the cross. The reason I bring this up is that I often see people outside the LDS church on Internet forums and such mocking the Mormon aversion to the cross, taking it as some sort of sign that Mormons obviously don't worship Jesus and are some sort of weirdo cultists. I think the reality is a lot more complex than that.

This metaphor can only stretch so far since there's one glaring difference between the Jewish relationship with Christmas and the Mormon relationship with the cross: Christmas is actually fun -- loads of fun -- full of all manner of interesting traditions and customs to suit all tastes, whereas who could argue that wearing and displaying a representation of a gruesome means of execution is fun? (How did a religion of peace and love get such a violent symbol anyway? Seriously guys, what brainiac thought of that one?)

There are several official/theological reasons Mormons give for not using the cross symbol. But the official avoidance of it naturally leads to an emotional avoidance as well. A Mormon wearing a cross or putting a cross on an LDS church would be like saying "Mormon, Methodist, Presbyterian -- it's all the same thing, just a few squabbles over the details."

I suppose now that mainstreaming is the order of the order of the day, President Hinkley's next prophecy will be to encourage all faithful LDS to trade in their CTR rings for cross pendants.

But for the moment at least, Mormons seem to accept being "peculiar."

"If the church weren't true, I'd be an atheist" and other things I learned in seminary....

When I was a senior in high school, our early-morning seminary class was taught by three divorced ladies all living in one house with all their respecitve kids: Sister Intellectual, Sister Mystic, and Sister Homemaker [not their real names as you might guess... ;-) ]

I related best to Sister Intellectual.

One morning I awoke from my usual early-morning-seminary stupor to find that Sister Intellectual was talking about the lack of unbiased historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

I remember vividly hearing her say "Good old Jospehus!" She explained how she had had a period of doubt, and the testimony of (non-Christian) Josephus served as evidence that Jesus lived and was the Christ, and that from there the first vision, the three witnesses, and all the rest fell into place, and if not for that she would doubt the whole thing.

(Note that I'm pretty sure she was talking about a passage that is commonly believed to be a forgery...)

Many Christians will find this ludicrously ironic that she felt that the weak spot in Mormonism was the evidence for the existence of Jesus, but I could see her point.

So as usual I took my best church friend to school (she was a sophomore, but was the only other LDS girl in my whole high school), and as usual we went to pick up my best friend who was a senior like me but was a devout Lutheran.

My LDS friend and I talked about what we had heard, and we agreed without hesitation that if the church were not true, the most logical alternative would be atheism.

The hilarious thing was that I was actually surprised that my Lutheran friend was annoyed at us for suggesting such a thing... lol

Of course at this point I was mere months (or perhaps even weeks or days) away from the epiphany of a lifetime......


Posted to RfM January 9, 2006.