The idea was popular in 17th century England: the Protestants must be right because they suffered so much. Truth in Areopagitica, a political tract by Milton, is hewn into a thousand pieces and scattered to the four winds. Not only is Truth tortured, she is Truth BECAUSE she is tortured. Martyrology goes hand-in-hand with an apocolyptic mindset: the end is coming because -look!- everything is so bad.
The worst thing about the concept of martyrology is the sense of entitlement it grants to its proponents. I'll use the mormon church as an example, just because I am so intimately aquanted with it. Mormons are, from birth, imbued with the sense of being a peculiar people (just as a side note, the word peculiar comes from an English tax, and that which was taken was understood as "belonging to the king"--see, do you see how it connects?), a fact that they are proud of. Different is good and essential. Don't you see what a horrible place the world has become?? However, the problem comes in opposition to the accepted and sanctioned mindset. It doesn't matter what is proposed to followers of the mormon church; the fact that there is such a huge "anti" mormon movement PROVES that the church is true. If it weren't true, people wouldn't devote their lives to arguing against it. There is no way to argue with a position like that. No matter how articulate, convincing, and/or aggressive opposition becomes, the faithful gather together in the sure knowledge that what they believe is true because there is so much loud evidence to the contrary.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Cougars don't cut corners
From my time at UCF:
So, today I walked across the grass on campus with a smug sense of satisfaction. My building is right next to the parking garage, but the sidewalk does not cut a direct path; it kinda sneaks over at right angles instead of just making a diagonal beeline for my office (inconsiderate sidewalk builders). While I see other people cutting through the grass (and really, it's an aggrandizing stretch to call it such. Florida doesn't have grass; we have greenish weeds of various colors that make their hetrogenous way across open spaces, mostly covering the ground. Or in really ritzy areas, you have this astroturf looking stuff that feels... wrong... in some unfathomable, turning the world on its end way), I can't walk on the grass becauseI couldn't while I was at BYU. Each and every time I did--I think it was twice--I got the speech from one or more pedestrians that "cougars don't cut corners," --the cougar is the mascot-- referring, no doubt, to the fact that BYU is known for its moral code and general uprightness (as my friend pointed out today, however, cougars do in fact cut corners. Wildcats don't follow clearly designated walking areas). So, I felt a little naughty, like I was getting away with something, as I made my precarious way through the grass, avoiding things like small holes and squirrels. But it felt good. And I think I will do it again.
So, today I walked across the grass on campus with a smug sense of satisfaction. My building is right next to the parking garage, but the sidewalk does not cut a direct path; it kinda sneaks over at right angles instead of just making a diagonal beeline for my office (inconsiderate sidewalk builders). While I see other people cutting through the grass (and really, it's an aggrandizing stretch to call it such. Florida doesn't have grass; we have greenish weeds of various colors that make their hetrogenous way across open spaces, mostly covering the ground. Or in really ritzy areas, you have this astroturf looking stuff that feels... wrong... in some unfathomable, turning the world on its end way), I can't walk on the grass becauseI couldn't while I was at BYU. Each and every time I did--I think it was twice--I got the speech from one or more pedestrians that "cougars don't cut corners," --the cougar is the mascot-- referring, no doubt, to the fact that BYU is known for its moral code and general uprightness (as my friend pointed out today, however, cougars do in fact cut corners. Wildcats don't follow clearly designated walking areas). So, I felt a little naughty, like I was getting away with something, as I made my precarious way through the grass, avoiding things like small holes and squirrels. But it felt good. And I think I will do it again.
CTR part 2
This choice is also inherent in the fact that you are a mormon at all. The church teaches that those who are here on earth chose to keep their first estate, that is, they chose before coming down to earth to follow god. And those who are members of the church are the ones who chose the most right in the pre-existence.
The T stands for the. While this might not seem like something I could spend my time analyzing—never underestimate my powers of over analysis!—it is actually the most important word in the whole initialism. In my first waitressing job, we had a whole hour and a half of training where we went over the restaurants mission statement. Our mission statement had something to do with good food and better service, but my manager spent the most time on the fact that we didn't want to be one of the best restaurants in the area; we wanted to be the best restaurant in the area. No namby-pambying around for us. The definite article in both my old job's mission statement and also the religious initialism designates both primacy and supremacy of that which follows. The church acknowledges no relativism. There is not any "everyone finds different paths to god" or "I don't believe like you do, but your life makes you happy and that is great." Oh no. The use of the definite article removes any wavering, any luffing. There is no other right. There is one right that works for each and every individual on the face of the planet. (Non members often comment on the uniformity—physical, psychological, spiritual—of members.) There is one baptism, one church, one method of worship. And that which is not the right is wrong.
The R stands for right. I could make a deviation here into the political right of both the church and its policies and practices, but I won't. Not only am I not politically inclined, but I think that may be a stretch, even for new historicism. The right is that which members of the church are striving for. And as I discussed earlier, there are not rights: there is one and only one right. That right makes it possible for all the girls in your class to set the same set of five goals for that week. That right makes it possible for everyone in every circumstance to be required to fulfill the same obligations. All must pass through the same portals, both in the mortal world and the world to come.
The predominance of this right also makes it unnecessary to explore, explain, or analyze either its limits or its alternatives. Members are neither encouraged nor permitted to intellectually explore the bounds of the right; the nature of the right is all-encompassing, and it therefore has no bounds. There is nothing outside the right of the church, so you are not to look. Anything that is said outside the right is wrong and is satan trying to deceive you.
The T stands for the. While this might not seem like something I could spend my time analyzing—never underestimate my powers of over analysis!—it is actually the most important word in the whole initialism. In my first waitressing job, we had a whole hour and a half of training where we went over the restaurants mission statement. Our mission statement had something to do with good food and better service, but my manager spent the most time on the fact that we didn't want to be one of the best restaurants in the area; we wanted to be the best restaurant in the area. No namby-pambying around for us. The definite article in both my old job's mission statement and also the religious initialism designates both primacy and supremacy of that which follows. The church acknowledges no relativism. There is not any "everyone finds different paths to god" or "I don't believe like you do, but your life makes you happy and that is great." Oh no. The use of the definite article removes any wavering, any luffing. There is no other right. There is one right that works for each and every individual on the face of the planet. (Non members often comment on the uniformity—physical, psychological, spiritual—of members.) There is one baptism, one church, one method of worship. And that which is not the right is wrong.
The R stands for right. I could make a deviation here into the political right of both the church and its policies and practices, but I won't. Not only am I not politically inclined, but I think that may be a stretch, even for new historicism. The right is that which members of the church are striving for. And as I discussed earlier, there are not rights: there is one and only one right. That right makes it possible for all the girls in your class to set the same set of five goals for that week. That right makes it possible for everyone in every circumstance to be required to fulfill the same obligations. All must pass through the same portals, both in the mortal world and the world to come.
The predominance of this right also makes it unnecessary to explore, explain, or analyze either its limits or its alternatives. Members are neither encouraged nor permitted to intellectually explore the bounds of the right; the nature of the right is all-encompassing, and it therefore has no bounds. There is nothing outside the right of the church, so you are not to look. Anything that is said outside the right is wrong and is satan trying to deceive you.
New Historicism and the CTR ring
Those of you familiar with the Mormon culture know about the CTR ring. When you are eight, the sunday school class you are put into is named after the ring that you get upon its completion. The CTR ring is the most recognized esoteric symbol of the Mormon culture; it is a way of mormons recognizing each other without the proclamation of faith (which, if you know any mormons, will often happen anyway). The ring that these eight year olds get is a cheap, sizable ring that has the letters CTR set on a green shield; the initialism stands for "Choose the Right," one of those catch phrases of the religion.
So, looking at this object from a new historicist slant: By making the ring an initialism (like an acronym. In an acronym, you say the letters like a word, like radar or laser or NASA. An initialism you name every letter in the "word"), the knowledge is necessarily esoteric. You only know what CTR means if you are already interpolated into the culture.
The C stands for choose. The possibility of choice and individual power is central to the faith. As a descendant of puritan and protestantism, Mormonism makes the individual and individual choice central in the relationship to deity (if you are not as close to God as you want to be, it is because you chose to move away from him). This choice is also inherent in the way that callings are issued within the body of the church. With no paid (or formally--or often informally--trained) clergy, it becomes necessary to find some other means of recruiting member participation. In mormonism, this translates to fulfilling your calling. Members are taught from a young age that part of your duties as a faithful saint is to accept callings from the church to be president or teacher of a class, or to be on a committee. You choose to accept these callings (I mean, you are asked, given a choice), but not accepting a calling is largely looked down upon.
So, looking at this object from a new historicist slant: By making the ring an initialism (like an acronym. In an acronym, you say the letters like a word, like radar or laser or NASA. An initialism you name every letter in the "word"), the knowledge is necessarily esoteric. You only know what CTR means if you are already interpolated into the culture.
The C stands for choose. The possibility of choice and individual power is central to the faith. As a descendant of puritan and protestantism, Mormonism makes the individual and individual choice central in the relationship to deity (if you are not as close to God as you want to be, it is because you chose to move away from him). This choice is also inherent in the way that callings are issued within the body of the church. With no paid (or formally--or often informally--trained) clergy, it becomes necessary to find some other means of recruiting member participation. In mormonism, this translates to fulfilling your calling. Members are taught from a young age that part of your duties as a faithful saint is to accept callings from the church to be president or teacher of a class, or to be on a committee. You choose to accept these callings (I mean, you are asked, given a choice), but not accepting a calling is largely looked down upon.
Juvenile religion
I love my four-year-old nephew. He is adorable and sweet and fun and all those other things that ensure a child's survival when balanced against their incredible powers of annoyance. This nephew hates church. I mean he hates everything about it. He hates the clothes, the shoes, he hates the classes, the singing, the sitting.
Last week, and this week, I had conversations with him about it.
Me: "How was church?"
Him: "Stupid."
"Did you learn anything?"
"No."
"Did you talk about Jesus?"
"I don't know."
"Did you like it?"
"It was stupid."
"Stupid like how?"
"stupid like blah blah blah."
I am starting to think that all little kids are atheists, and that it is cruel and unusual to expect a four year old to sit still for three hours of church. I am not against children and religion, but I don't think that all kids are made for it. Like not all adults are made for it. And all this stuff about innate religion... I'm not sure I believe it.
A lot of people will say that it is intellectualism, studying the wrong things that will lead you out of the church. But it's not. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right. It doesn't fill what you need it to fill. Sometimes it's a nagging feeling that something is off, a natural urge to spend your time how you want to spend it, a feeling of uselessness when you go to church.
For me, it was the so-called intellectualism, the control of intellectual property which I believe should be free. But the church can be wrong in so many ways. Kind of comforting, truth be told.
Last week, and this week, I had conversations with him about it.
Me: "How was church?"
Him: "Stupid."
"Did you learn anything?"
"No."
"Did you talk about Jesus?"
"I don't know."
"Did you like it?"
"It was stupid."
"Stupid like how?"
"stupid like blah blah blah."
I am starting to think that all little kids are atheists, and that it is cruel and unusual to expect a four year old to sit still for three hours of church. I am not against children and religion, but I don't think that all kids are made for it. Like not all adults are made for it. And all this stuff about innate religion... I'm not sure I believe it.
A lot of people will say that it is intellectualism, studying the wrong things that will lead you out of the church. But it's not. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right. It doesn't fill what you need it to fill. Sometimes it's a nagging feeling that something is off, a natural urge to spend your time how you want to spend it, a feeling of uselessness when you go to church.
For me, it was the so-called intellectualism, the control of intellectual property which I believe should be free. But the church can be wrong in so many ways. Kind of comforting, truth be told.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Christ Clone
I hate pedantic literature. I don't think there is anything worse. I mean, all literature, all writing, says something. It says something about the author, about the culture, about biases, about.... whatever.
Before I left the country for a year and a half, I read the first two books of the Christ Clone Trilogy. It was well written and interesting. The story was compelling and the characters intriguing. The story was a little irreligious; the premise is the cloning of god. It also messes with the judeo-christian myth, figuring god as a tyrant, and satan as a liberator. Very miltonesque, very turning your world view upside down. I really liked it, especially as I was doubting god, looking for alternative viewpoints, looking for explanations, for history. Even for out-there ideas. Dialogue. Anything.
The book takes new age ideas, a little bit of scientology. It places power with individuals. It takes a good look at the god of the new testament, honestly evaluates god on the basis of his actions. God of the old testament IS a bastard. He punishes people, he is fickle, he is cruel.
Well, I got to the last book. I was up at 2 am, when I should have been getting a good night's rest for my training the next morning. In a COMPLETE reversal of plot, a drastic shift in several of the characters, in a short shot, it comes out that our Christ clone is the anti-christ, that he is cruel. So after provoking thought, it returns all its readers that they are nothing without god.
As a lit major, I should have known this. I mean, we talked about it in my junior year with "the chimney sweep." Questioning the status quo as a way to return to the status quo; questioning so that the people CAN"T question; thinking for the people so that the people can feel as though they are questioning without actually questioning. Religion has used it, government uses it. It is the great evil institution of Marx.
I just find myself disappointed. It really upset me that a book, that a thought process, that a theory that points out some really valid points about christianity returns to the unthinking realm of "feeling." Well, if you feel bad, it must be god telling you no. If you feel happy, god must be inspiring you. Nothing you do or feel is your own power. You are all dependant on god, even for your own feelings. Individualism, belief in your own power, is bad. It's evil. Wanting to be a grown up, to think for yourself, is evil.
So, in Catholicism, wanting to be like god is heresy. In mormonism, wanting to be like god is required. I just don't like going through my whole reversal of religion in 3 hours of reading a novel. Maybe I should just stay away from those crazy evangelicals.
Before I left the country for a year and a half, I read the first two books of the Christ Clone Trilogy. It was well written and interesting. The story was compelling and the characters intriguing. The story was a little irreligious; the premise is the cloning of god. It also messes with the judeo-christian myth, figuring god as a tyrant, and satan as a liberator. Very miltonesque, very turning your world view upside down. I really liked it, especially as I was doubting god, looking for alternative viewpoints, looking for explanations, for history. Even for out-there ideas. Dialogue. Anything.
The book takes new age ideas, a little bit of scientology. It places power with individuals. It takes a good look at the god of the new testament, honestly evaluates god on the basis of his actions. God of the old testament IS a bastard. He punishes people, he is fickle, he is cruel.
Well, I got to the last book. I was up at 2 am, when I should have been getting a good night's rest for my training the next morning. In a COMPLETE reversal of plot, a drastic shift in several of the characters, in a short shot, it comes out that our Christ clone is the anti-christ, that he is cruel. So after provoking thought, it returns all its readers that they are nothing without god.
As a lit major, I should have known this. I mean, we talked about it in my junior year with "the chimney sweep." Questioning the status quo as a way to return to the status quo; questioning so that the people CAN"T question; thinking for the people so that the people can feel as though they are questioning without actually questioning. Religion has used it, government uses it. It is the great evil institution of Marx.
I just find myself disappointed. It really upset me that a book, that a thought process, that a theory that points out some really valid points about christianity returns to the unthinking realm of "feeling." Well, if you feel bad, it must be god telling you no. If you feel happy, god must be inspiring you. Nothing you do or feel is your own power. You are all dependant on god, even for your own feelings. Individualism, belief in your own power, is bad. It's evil. Wanting to be a grown up, to think for yourself, is evil.
So, in Catholicism, wanting to be like god is heresy. In mormonism, wanting to be like god is required. I just don't like going through my whole reversal of religion in 3 hours of reading a novel. Maybe I should just stay away from those crazy evangelicals.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Prophets
The church magazines came in the mail today.
In good mormon homes, you sign up for three different church magazines. The Friend is for children, usually with stories about being kind to others or sharing. Occasionally there is a mindless obedience story, but mostly it is coloring and love one another.
The New Era is for young adults, focused on staying strong thru adversity and following the prophet. Most of the stories are chicken soup for the soul-esque, and strike me now as drivel.
The Ensign (pronounced both as en-SINE and EN-sin)is for adults. It is all talks from the prophets and the meat of the gospel. It has messages that home teachers and visiting teachers are supposed to take to their families.
As I was reading through the Ensign today, I noticed an article about how everyone's personal salvation depends on your acceptance of the prophet Joseph Smith. Some church doctrine even goes so far as to claim that Joseph Smith will decide who does, and who does NOT, get to pass into heaven.
So, apparently prophets are pretty important. And what's more, you get great checklists like this, from Benson, about the prophetic mantle:
FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
FOURTH: The Prophet will never lead the Church astray.
FIFTH: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
SIXTH: The prophet does not have to say "Thus Saith the Lord," to give us scripture.
SEVENTH: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
EIGHTH: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.
NINTH: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
TENTH: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
ELEVENTH: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
TWELFTH: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
THIRTEENTH: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.
FOURTEENTH: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed--reject them and suffer.
Mormons get really upset when you call them unchristian, when you say they aren't centered around christ or his teachings. Then you get lists like this and claims that Joseph Smith trumps the savior.
Mormons should at least be able to see where the rest of the world is coming from on this one.
In good mormon homes, you sign up for three different church magazines. The Friend is for children, usually with stories about being kind to others or sharing. Occasionally there is a mindless obedience story, but mostly it is coloring and love one another.
The New Era is for young adults, focused on staying strong thru adversity and following the prophet. Most of the stories are chicken soup for the soul-esque, and strike me now as drivel.
The Ensign (pronounced both as en-SINE and EN-sin)is for adults. It is all talks from the prophets and the meat of the gospel. It has messages that home teachers and visiting teachers are supposed to take to their families.
As I was reading through the Ensign today, I noticed an article about how everyone's personal salvation depends on your acceptance of the prophet Joseph Smith. Some church doctrine even goes so far as to claim that Joseph Smith will decide who does, and who does NOT, get to pass into heaven.
So, apparently prophets are pretty important. And what's more, you get great checklists like this, from Benson, about the prophetic mantle:
FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
FOURTH: The Prophet will never lead the Church astray.
FIFTH: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
SIXTH: The prophet does not have to say "Thus Saith the Lord," to give us scripture.
SEVENTH: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
EIGHTH: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.
NINTH: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
TENTH: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
ELEVENTH: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
TWELFTH: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
THIRTEENTH: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.
FOURTEENTH: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed--reject them and suffer.
Mormons get really upset when you call them unchristian, when you say they aren't centered around christ or his teachings. Then you get lists like this and claims that Joseph Smith trumps the savior.
Mormons should at least be able to see where the rest of the world is coming from on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
