1835

I read that they were a splinter group that had lived in Mexico for generations. They were essentially white Mexicans. But not Americans. Maybe I’m wrong, that’s perfectly possible. :)

1836

One article I just read said they were American. The CNN article says they have dual citizenship.

1837

Yeah, it’s confusing; the community has been there for generations, but iirc the individuals came and went and never let go of their US citizenship.

1838

Which would make them Americans that just happened to live in Mexico who also happened to Mormons.

This whole thing is tragic no matter what they were, but it seems like the reporting is all over the place.

1839

image

1840

Some of our staff members who were covering the event used Northwestern’s directory to obtain phone numbers for students beforehand and texted them to ask if they’d be willing to be interviewed. We recognize being contacted like this is an invasion of privacy, and we’ve spoken with those reporters — along with our entire staff — about the correct way to reach out to students for stories.

The fuck? Isn’t the method being described called “journalism”?

1841

Don’t forget the Sikh gurus.

1842

That said Mormonism is a first hand account of watching a religion actually be born, in a modern world with modern details. It’s also entirely this Anglo-American, Manifest Destiny thing by rural farmers in the midst of this “second great revival” thing. You might also blame New York state for yet another problem they shipped out to the rest of the country.

Of all the Christian denominations today i’d give Mormonism the nod for being, on the average, by far the most pleasant and practicing - it feels like Mormons take their religion seriously and operate their lives under its auspices in a way few other Christian groups today do. I sometimes argue it has a decent shot at becoming a significant share of the landscape in the US - if it can overcome its obvious problems.

It’s interesting how Mormonism was founded literally just on the edge of this revolution in documentation, that the founding myths are just so barely outside the boundaries of the concrete and just, by the skin of their teeth, falling on the edge of mythmaking. Much of early Mormon history that Mormons take seriously is about oral and (eventually) written down testimonies from adjacent persons.

Sikhism otoh has little appeal to people outside the border between Islam and Hinduism because it’s entirely syncretic between the two religions, so if you don’t already by into a culture where both of them exist, it just has less appeal. That said I have seen some ethnic European converts fo Sikhism here in the US but I don’t imagine it’s a thing that will take off.

It would actually be a good time for a new religion to appear, actually, since all the faults and limitations of all the current religions today seem so apparent and obvious.

1843

I think this is more or less what the Evangelical movement of the last few decades has been. Thus the tea party, thus white supremacy resurgence, thus crazy abortion restrictions, thus a lot of things.

1844

Pastafarianism isn’t good enough for ya?

1845

I’m not religious, and actually shade toward anti-religious, but I always thought Mormonism got an unfair rap for its founding mythology. There is nothing more unbelievable about the claims of Mormonism than there is about the claims of any other religion; it is only because they are so near to us in time that they seem more unbelievable.

1846

I think my biggest huddle with Mormonism is the founder. I mean, a con man pulling a con doesn’t seem out of this world.

1847

I would much prefer that people realize that religion isn’t magic and they start living in the real world instead, but that’s probably asking too much.

1848

To be fair, most religions look like a con to me, being on the outside looking in. It’s just that the cons started long before anyone’s living memory. I know you’re religious so I’m not intending this to be a slight or disrespectful, I’m just speaking of perspective (in this case, my own). It’s always been a little humorous to me when evangelicals or Catholics or any other denomination sneer at Mormons for how ridiculous/unbelievable/con-artisty the faith is. Pot, meet kettle.

1849

I find that off putting. I have great respect for people that follow Buddhism, or Islam or Judaism. Hinduism sounds pretty interesting to me as well.

There is a gulf between these religions and Mormonism, and it’s not just the time of it’s founding.

1850

Even better would be for people to realize that religion is magic, and start living in the real world. If they are going to accept one kind of supernatural stuff, they also need to allow for every other supernatural thing anyone claims (including all the other possible religions).

1851

There are a lot of people that don’t believe in a centralized religion.
But what is that gulf filled with? I mean, we have seen a rise in Anti Vaccine movement, flat earthers, weird and odd conspiracy, and idols of all sorts, like the extra rich, capitalism, or Donald Trump.

Nature and people abhors a vacuum, and as traditional institutions break down, I am not sure I am fond of what is filling its place.

1852

I agree with this. I think Smith’s methodology in authoring/transcribing the BoM is rather similar to Mohammed’s with the Koran, but he did it both more recently and in an era where there was more thorough documentation and therefore perhaps more ready grounds for skepticism. That said, there were no doubt many people in the 600s who thought Mohammed was a wackadoodle, but he pushed on through with a little help from his friends (and, in the long term, vast and powerful armies – never hurts!).

As for the idea that we need a new religion, that sticks in my throat because even though it is (IMHO) probably true that religions exist to serve human needs, they claim to exist to express fundamental truths. And one can’t come up with fundamental truths on demand.

1853

People falling for con men, anti-science movements and greed are all consistently prevalent throughout history, with or without organized religion. I don’t see how you can meaningfully draw a correlation between these things and the presence or absence of traditional institutions.

1854

It’s a different discussion what role religions hold in society and why. In list form it’s something like

  1. Propitiatory - Sacrificing to God(s) who will provide some reward. This used to be political (ie Gods operated on the scale of tribes or cities) - eventually it became personal.
  2. Sociological - Providing a framework for organizing society
  3. Moral - Providing rules to guide individuals and societies (ie, making its ethics axiomatic and beyond discussion)
  4. Psychological - Giving individuals comfort and a sense of security and/or influence in a world full of events outside of their influence. Justice, punishment/reward, forgiveness and redemption, life beyond death, suffering and the meaning of life.

I liked Averoes - he basically said reality is Aristotelian (ie philosophical) but religion existed for ordinary people. Whether or not he was right about Aristotle per se, there’s an insight that’s hard for well educated people to accept.

I’ve thought the existential crisis of the 21st C is going to be about Equality for a while now - it’s why our democratic systems are failing, it’s why we can’t cope with long term problems. Our societies assume everyone is equal when more and more clearly that - at least w/re to wisdom - nothing could be more apparently incorrect. The wise and thoughtful fraction of the population is much less than the rest. Religions exist because for most people they’re a short cut to righteous living.

What we need really is a political religion.