Religion is Good

[prisonchaplain]

I may be betraying my age, but I grew hearing that religion is bad. For Christians, the refrain was, "It's not a religion, it's a relationship." The idea being that everyone else had to be religious because they were trying to reach God. Religion was humanity's attempt to find God. We learned that God came after us by sending Jesus to die for our sins.

Non-Christians, and some progressive ones, were fond of saying, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." What they meant was that organized religions were about systems and rules and programs. They were about personally connecting with their higher power. 

My argument, as a chaplain, is that religion is good. If people are trying to reach God the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon proclaim that they will find Him. As a great example, I've heard stories of Muslims having dreams of Jesus coming to them. Since Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet, they listen carefully. After all, we should listen to and heed what prophets tell us, right? (i hear the faithful church members saying 'amen.')  Jesus tells them that he is more than a prophet--he is the Savior--the Son of God. They listen and some convert, because they are religious. Their religion teaches them that Jesus is to be listened to because he is a prophet.

So, no, religion will not redeem anyone. However, religion--a seeking after God--can build a spiritual bridge that can lead the soul to conversion/salvation.

Bottom-line: Religion is good. 

[Vort]

I heard a lot of that "spiritual, not religious" crap growing up, too. Those who say, "I love spirituality but I don't practice any specific religion" might as well say, "I love linguistics but I don't speak any specific languages."

Even within my own family, I heard one beloved aunt being referred to as "very religious", as if that were some ersatz form of being spiritual. (She was in fact very spiritual, but unabashedly religious.) Since that time, being the stubborn, stonehearted fool I am, I have openly embraced the label of "religious", both in and outside my family. Yes, I'm religious. Very much so. The fact is, I'm not all that spiritual, certainly not where I would like to be. But I'm religious. And I don't even have the good sense to be ashamed of it. I don't think that's backward at all. Religiosity leads to (or at least can lead to) spirituality. I do not believe that irreligiosity helps one be more spiritual.

President Nelson gave a talk in General Conference a few years back where he investigated the etymology of the word "religion", demonstrating how it meant "to tie [one] back [to something]". That's the idea of religion, isn't it? To tie us back to God. I have little patience for those who insist that religion per se is a crutch or a weakness. They can believe what they want, but I reserve the right to label their idiocy for what it is.

[prisonchaplain]

I wonder if it would be too much to define spirituality as a vague form of religiosity. Often the only people that will own the label atheist are those who want to be perceived as intellectual and blunt. Most find such impolite. And yet, they really aren't religious or spiritual. They're just too lazy to be atheists. Or they just don't think any of it is important. IMHO the people least likely to repent/convert are those who are self-satisfied with their vague goodness and equally nebulous spirituality. 

[popatr]

Pure spirituality is just self worship.
There have to be rules you don't make up yourself, or it's just about you, not relationships with God or others.

Edited September 7, 2023 by popatr

[Phoenix_person]

Spirituality is just unstructured religion, and frankly it seems more logical to me than the rigid dogmatic systems that make up many modern religions. The biggest problem I have with religion is that it ascribes increasing levels of complexity to a system that's based on an intangible and objectively unknowable entity. Convincing me to believe in God is tricky enough. But you also want me to believe that he hates pork, loves polygamy, and wants me to dedicate half of my weekend* to piety? It's hard to look at organized religions and see them as something other than man-made systems of control. That's why even some Christians are abandoning their churches in favor of honoring God and Jesus on a more personal and less ceremonial level. I still don't agree with it, but it seems more sensible to me to have a flexible spiritual relationship with a diety than a structured dogmatic one. It's more in line with the concept of a personal god, imo.

 

*Which half is open to interpretation based on whether or not you accept the New Testament as gospel.

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

The biggest problem I have with religion is that it ascribes increasing levels of complexity to a system that's based on an intangible and objectively unknowable entity.

The biggest problem I have with atheism is that atheists literally have no idea what religion is about, or how God might be perfectly knowable and not utterly subjective, and how they affirm their ignorance with no thought that maybe, you know, there's more to it than they perceive.

[Ironhold]

As I've noted before, two of the most bigoted, hateful, and willfully ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with had doctorates in their chosen field. 

One was an avowed atheist with a degree in the social sciences. 

The other was a minister. 

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

As I've noted before, two of the most bigoted, hateful, and willfully ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with had doctorates in their chosen field. 

One was an avowed atheist with a degree in the social sciences. 

The other was a minister. 

Education is indeed no guarantee of intelligence, nor religious position of piety.

[rcthompson88]

I have appreciated the comments some have made in my Sunday School classes about realizing what was lost during COVID restrictions, namely the ability to gather as a ward family and a community of Christ each Sunday.

[Vort]

36 minutes ago, rcthompson88 said:

I have appreciated the comments some have made in my Sunday School classes about realizing what was lost during COVID restrictions, namely the ability to gather as a ward family and a community of Christ each Sunday.

I had already realized the importance of the Saints gathering together every week, but the covid idiocy really brought that home.

[JohnsonJones]

On 9/8/2023 at 10:22 PM, Vort said:

I had already realized the importance of the Saints gathering together every week, but the covid idiocy really brought that home.

When you say Covid Idiocy, are you referring to quarantines and isolation as well as masking policies?

Things supported by the Apostles and even the Prophet?

What exactly are you referring to?

Historically, these measures HAVE helped save lives (though those who haven't read history REALLY tried to repeat it before we had vaccines or other measures to help against COVID-19) during outbreaks of disease or plague. 

I think our prophet understood this both as a Prophet AND as a Doctor.  I think he also understood that where ever a group of Saints gather (whether it is in a family or a ward) it can be considered a gathering of Saints as per the Scriptures, and that from these we can gather strength.  In this we also were prepared with a program which could be utilized individually, as families, or as wards (Come Follow Me). 

It is probable that the ailments and diseases put upon us in these Latter-days are products of the Adversary meant to hinder the work of the Lord, but I think that the work of the Lord will progress regardless.  Did Covid-19 make complications for us?  Absolutely!  However, the servants of the Lord had ways which still helped us progress (broadcasts of Sacrament meetings, the Come Follow Me program, etc). 

In the end I feel they felt that LIVES and SAVING physical lives were important things to do.  I heard MANY that put down the Prophet and some of the apostles for trying to ensure the health and welfare of the Saints at that time, and it does not amuse me. 

I do not know what you meant by what you stated, but there are things that come to mind simply because there are those that say the Church is important and needful, and then in the same breath try to destroy the leaders of the Church and their policies due to the actions taken during Covid-19 to save lives and preserve health. 

I feel you must be talking about some other item regarding COVID-19  (perhaps those who spoke against the prophet and insisted that murder, bloodshed, and killing their fellow saints were acceptable "sacrifices" so that they could meet and infect others ...perhaps that's the idiocy that you are referring to, though I'm not sure how that relates to the importance of Saints meeting each week in that light) and idiocy...but I do not know what exactly you mean. 

Hopefully you will explain what you meant by Covid Idiocy (in a fashion that speaks HIGHLY of the Prophet and the Apostles and the actions they took to help use overcome as well as preserve those vulnerable among us at that time.  Perhaps you could also be referring to how the Prophet wore a mask not only as protection, but as an example to us and also got vaccinated to show us what we should be doing as we care for ourselves and our fellow men as the wise choice, and those who were trying to tell us to do the opposite of what the Prophet was showing and telling us to do as being the idiots?).

[Carborendum]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:25 PM, prisonchaplain said:

"It's not a religion, it's a relationship."

 "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." 

Whenever someone tries to dissect meanings of words, we have to ask two questions:

1. Do the definitions they are using have any useful purpose for the point of discussion?
2. Does the final point they're making actually make sense regardless?

If the final point makes sense, then whatever words we use, we can agree. 
If the definitions they are using are based on logical origins of words or proper contextual clues, etc. then they may very well be valid definitions.
If the definitions they use are based on next-level imagineering, then we have to wonder why on earth they are jumping through such loops to make a point that could be done a lot more easily.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Carborendum

[Vort]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

When you say Covid Idiocy, are you referring to quarantines and isolation as well as masking policies?

Things supported by the Apostles and even the Prophet?

You got it.

[prisonchaplain]

On 9/8/2023 at 11:21 AM, Ironhold said:

The other was a minister. 

  GULP! 

[Ironhold]

18 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

  GULP! 

How these two people worked was that they saw their doctorates as shields of invulnerability. 

In their mind, no one who had less than a master's had the right to even speak to them, and only those who had doctorates like they did could even think about posing questions. It didn't matter what the topic was; they had a doctorate, they were all-knowing, and everyone else was to kiss their ring after the lecture was over. 

For obvious reasons, they were quick to get upset when people did ask questions, and had full-blown tantrums when confronted with contradictory evidence that they couldn't refute. 

The social sciences major actually cussed out an entire internet forum when multiple people there with various areas of expertise and credentials all agreed that a study which backed up her bigotry was too fundamentally flawed for the results to be trustworthy. How dare anyone so affront her view of the world, and how dare anyone in academia not automatically take her side. 

The minister? His entire portfolio boiled down to six or seven arguments against the church, arguments like "Since Joseph Smith didn't have a degree in such-and-such language what gave him the right to try and translate anything?". 

These people had the sheets of paper to say they were supposed to be smart and wise, but hard reality said that they were incredibly foolish and could only serve as poor examples. 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

How these two people worked was that they saw their doctorates as shields of invulnerability. 

In their mind, no one who had less than a master's had the right to even speak to them, and only those who had doctorates like they did could even think about posing questions. It didn't matter what the topic was; they had a doctorate, they were all-knowing, and everyone else was to kiss their ring after the lecture was over. 

For obvious reasons, they were quick to get upset when people did ask questions, and had full-blown tantrums when confronted with contradictory evidence that they couldn't refute. 

The social sciences major actually cussed out an entire internet forum when multiple people there with various areas of expertise and credentials all agreed that a study which backed up her bigotry was too fundamentally flawed for the results to be trustworthy. How dare anyone so affront her view of the world, and how dare anyone in academia not automatically take her side. 

The minister? His entire portfolio boiled down to six or seven arguments against the church, arguments like "Since Joseph Smith didn't have a degree in such-and-such language what gave him the right to try and translate anything?". 

These people had the sheets of paper to say they were supposed to be smart and wise, but hard reality said that they were incredibly foolish and could only serve as poor examples. 

Man. Some people's children.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

How these two people worked was that they saw their doctorates as shields of invulnerability. 

This reminds me of the Education Pyramid.

1. In kindergarten we learn a little bit about everything.

2. In high school we learn more about less.

3. In college we learn even more about even less.

4. At the doctorate level we learn everything about nothing.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

The minister? His entire portfolio boiled down to six or seven arguments against the church, arguments like "Since Joseph Smith didn't have a degree in such-and-such language what gave him the right to try and translate anything?". 

When my brother-in-law graduated with a Masters in English Literature (he now has a doctorate and is a professor) he told me I should call him Master. The next year I graduated from seminary and asked if he would be calling me Divine Master. Needless to say, we're on a first name basis now. 😉

[Ironhold]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

When my brother-in-law graduated with a Masters in English Literature (he now has a doctorate and is a professor) he told me I should call him Master. The next year I graduated from seminary and asked if he would be calling me Divine Master. Needless to say, we're on a first name basis now. 😉

I have an MBA unless someone's tried to have it clawed back again (bit of a story). 

I never push for anyone to call me by a title, and only *reference* being an MBA when I need to make it clear I'm speaking from an academic standpoint. 

[prisonchaplain]

9 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

I have an MBA unless someone's tried to have it clawed back again (bit of a story). 

And to think I was impressed that President Reagan had a BA in Economics. 🙂

[LDSGator]

39 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

have an MBA unless someone's tried to have it clawed back again (bit of a story). 

Got me interested. What happened?

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

When my brother-in-law graduated with a Masters in English Literature (he now has a doctorate and is a professor) he told me I should call him Master. The next year I graduated from seminary and asked if he would be calling me Divine Master. Needless to say, we're on a first name basis now. 😉

Related, but not connected.

I remember when I was young I got letters addressing me as young Master "(my actual name)".  Many young men were called Master "so and so" as a name.  It indicated that one was still under the age of majority. 

I think someone with a Master's In English Literature would have realized that terminology (it isn't used as much today, but was used regularly up until at least the mid-20th century). 

Or maybe they did and wanted to feel a LOT younger than they actually were?

[prisonchaplain]

He was trying to be funny. The next year I thought I was funnier. We both came to realize that neither of us had a normal sense of humor. 😉 

[Ironhold]

15 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Got me interested. What happened?

Once upon a time, there was a place called the University of Central Texas. 

Ross Perot's people owned a research facility that was adjacent to the ever-growing campus of community college Central Texas College. When Perot's people moved their operations down near Austin, the research facility was donated to a non-profit and became the main campus of the University of Central Texas. People would do get their associate's degrees at CTC, then move to UCT to get their bachelor's. 

Due to a variety of factors, UCT allowed itself to be bought out by Tarleton State University, which is affiliated with the larger Texas A&M system. This meant that everyone who went to the former UCT now had access to the sum total of Tarleton's offerings, including post-graduate degrees. But with enrollment at both CTC and TSU Killeen surging in the late 2000s, this still wasn't enough to get the job done. More buildings at the shared CTC / TSU Killeen campus? Online courses from Tarleton and other A&M affiliates? Renting classrooms from CTC and Shoemaker High School after hours? Not enough.

Instead, the plan was put in place to have TSU Killeen transition into Texas A&M Central Texas. This would allow them to purchase a large plot of land for the construction of a proper campus that would be large enough to handle everyone without needing the space in Shoemaker, and eventually without needing the space in CTC itself. 

I was finishing up my MBA when the transition was being made, and so we were still relying on online courses from Tarleton and other A&M affiliates to help since only two structures at the new campus were operational. In particular, the online courses were needed to cover electives, since there wasn't enough room to handle everything. 

I needed x number of elective credits to graduate. I was only supposed to take a maximum of three seminar-style online elective courses, but this would have kept me back an entire semester just to take a single elective course for the sake of graduation; I wouldn't have qualified for financial aid this way, and it would have caused other disruptions since I'd have still been taking a lone class despite having already completed my official capstone course. So my advisor signed off on an exemption that would let me take a fourth seminar class. 

Well, my advisor was scheduled to be promoted at the end of the academic year, and because of his exemption I would graduate at the end of that academic year. 

His successor as an advisor either did not know about a number of exemptions that had been granted (including mine) or chose to deliberately ignore their existence for the sake of some sort of power play. Thus it was that I got my diploma on a Saturday and an e-mail the following Monday saying that my degree was revoked because I had too many seminar courses. 

I went with my mom to the campus, and in a fluke we blundered into the proctor. I explained the situation, mentioned that my previous advisor had given me an exemption, and saw the proctor flinch as he explained that my previous advisor's name had never been brought up at any point in the discussion prior to my arrival. 

By the time my mom and I had arrived home, I'd gotten a second e-mail explaining that my degree had since been restored. 

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Once upon a time, there was a place called the University of Central Texas. 

Ross Perot's people owned a research facility that was adjacent to the ever-growing campus of community college Central Texas College. When Perot's people moved their operations down near Austin, the research facility was donated to a non-profit and became the main campus of the University of Central Texas. People would do get their associate's degrees at CTC, then move to UCT to get their bachelor's. 

Due to a variety of factors, UCT allowed itself to be bought out by Tarleton State University, which is affiliated with the larger Texas A&M system. This meant that everyone who went to the former UCT now had access to the sum total of Tarleton's offerings, including post-graduate degrees. But with enrollment at both CTC and TSU Killeen surging in the late 2000s, this still wasn't enough to get the job done. More buildings at the shared CTC / TSU Killeen campus? Online courses from Tarleton and other A&M affiliates? Renting classrooms from CTC and Shoemaker High School after hours? Not enough.

Instead, the plan was put in place to have TSU Killeen transition into Texas A&M Central Texas. This would allow them to purchase a large plot of land for the construction of a proper campus that would be large enough to handle everyone without needing the space in Shoemaker, and eventually without needing the space in CTC itself. 

I was finishing up my MBA when the transition was being made, and so we were still relying on online courses from Tarleton and other A&M affiliates to help since only two structures at the new campus were operational. In particular, the online courses were needed to cover electives, since there wasn't enough room to handle everything. 

I needed x number of elective credits to graduate. I was only supposed to take a maximum of three seminar-style online elective courses, but this would have kept me back an entire semester just to take a single elective course for the sake of graduation; I wouldn't have qualified for financial aid this way, and it would have caused other disruptions since I'd have still been taking a lone class despite having already completed my official capstone course. So my advisor signed off on an exemption that would let me take a fourth seminar class. 

Well, my advisor was scheduled to be promoted at the end of the academic year, and because of his exemption I would graduate at the end of that academic year. 

His successor as an advisor either did not know about a number of exemptions that had been granted (including mine) or chose to deliberately ignore their existence for the sake of some sort of power play. Thus it was that I got my diploma on a Saturday and an e-mail the following Monday saying that my degree was revoked because I had too many seminar courses. 

I went with my mom to the campus, and in a fluke we blundered into the proctor. I explained the situation, mentioned that my previous advisor had given me an exemption, and saw the proctor flinch as he explained that my previous advisor's name had never been brought up at any point in the discussion prior to my arrival. 

By the time my mom and I had arrived home, I'd gotten a second e-mail explaining that my degree had since been restored. 

Very interesting. Thanks .