Amos

I am a practicing skeptic who remains fascinated by all things Mormon.

Posts by Amos:

    Baptism for the Dead

    9 February 2012

    AmosI’ve watched with fascination the discussion of baptism for the dead, both in online message boards I frequent and in the larger media, after the news that Mitt Romney’s atheist father-in-law was posthumously. Maybe I’m so fascinated because, like the gay marriage issue, there’s a “we mean well” attitude among Mormon church members that makes them completely tone deaf to legitimate, if sometimes blistering, criticism, and instead they just perceive persecution. (I’ve concluded that Prop 8 was less a bold moral stand than it was a gross miscalculation by elderly men who didn’t know how much the tide had turned. But, I digress.)

    I’ve tried to put my finger on what is so bothersome about BFTD to so many people, beyond the “lack of respect” argument. It seems to violate an old American tradition—religion is a choice. We’ve usually done a decent job in this country—especially compared to others—of navigating religious freedom while not being oppressive. There are plenty of horror stories, sure, but by and large the Founders’ vision of a public, but not state, religion has worked.

    Logically, the “you’re dead, what do you care?” argument lobbed at those who find BFTD distasteful is right. It is a little amusing to see people so dismissive of Mormonism’s faith claims get so worked up over something they have no faith in or belief in themselves. It is an emotional response, but one that I see as completely valid.

    We prize individuality and choice above all else in this country. These are old notions, and the idea that someone is messing with our names, long after we’re dead, is troublesome. (Would Mormons want someone to donate money to a pro-choice cause in their name after they die?) It also removes choice from the equation (again, if illogically). Right now a Mormon can knock on a door and ask someone to listen. We (for the most part) respect that right in this country, with the understanding that others can refuse to listen.

    We’ve decided in the last century or so, that religion is private, a choice, and like politics, damnit you just don’t discuss it in polite company. You gotta respect people’s religion! But BFTD doesn’t feel like it’s playing by those rules. (I think this is why so many people bristle at “in your face” atheism as well.) Baptism for the dead feels like…cheating, in some ways. An old American principle has been violated. It feels a little like “Neener neener, we’ll just get you when you’re dead,” even if that isn’t the intention. Americans are a prideful bunch, we don’t like the idea of anyone forcing us to do anything.

    Maybe I’ve just over thought it, but I do find the whole thing to be interesting.

    “I Know What I Saw!” Thoughts on Perception, Memory, and Faith

    16 August 2010

    “Memory’s unreliable…memory’s not perfect. It’s not even that good. Ask the police; eyewitness testimony is unreliable…. Memory can change the shape of a room or the color of a car. It’s an interpretation, not a record. Memories can be changed or distorted, and they’re irrelevant if you have the facts.” —Leonard Shelby, Memento

    A recent episode of the Point of Inquiry podcast mentioned a book that instantly colored me intrigued. The title, 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior, practically begged my inner-skeptic to read it. All the delicious psych topics are here—memory, recall, perception, intelligence, dreams, behavior, the subconscious, human development, even ESP. But one curious theme unintentionally keeps emerging: the unreliability of memory and personal experience. (more…)

    Mahering the New Atheists

    8 August 2010

    I was excited to see Bob Rees—a thoughtful believer if there ever was one—review Bill Maher’s pseudo-documentary, Religulous, in Sunstone (May 2009), but was ultimately disappointed. As is often the case with critiques of anti-theists like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, the review chose to play the “Religion Shouldn’t be Ridiculed” card, rather than substantively engage the criticisms it raised. The New Atheist movement brings an opportunity for sharp debate, but instead the same tired criticisms are trotted out: “they don’t understand religion;” “they’re just as narrow-minded as those they criticize;” “that’s not what my religion is.” On and on it goes, but when it’s all said and done, we end up in the same place—nowhere, with no specific criticisms of the indictments levied against religion. (more…)

    The LDS Church, Immigration, and Moral Courage

    28 June 2010

    Is the LDS Church making a concerted effort to educate and teach tolerance to its members on the issue of illegal immigration, albeit indirectly? Consider: on Saturday the Deseret News published a lengthy article addressing “myths” of illegal immigration that largely debunked common notions of the country losing billions to immigrants via unpaid taxes, lost jobs, healthcare, welfare, etc. Then today KSL had an editorial endorsing Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank who has come under intense criticism for his negative assessment of Arizona’s new law.

    This may absolutely be a coincidence but I doubt it. Historically the church has used its news outlets as a way to have its views heard. Officially the church has been cautious in its comments but has always emphasized compassion and understanding for “millions of people.” I think it’s safe to assume they aren’t referring to pissed off tea partiers angry that their lettuce-picking job went to an illegal immigrant.

    After seeing the church on the wrong side of the Prop 8 issue (yup, I’m still devastated and I don’t think I’ll ever get over it) it’s so heartening to see them take the compassionate track on an issue with some of the most vulnerable in our society demonized, even called “mules” by the governor of Arizona recently. That said, I’m still disappointed over the church’s obsessive paranoia on speaking out on any issue except gay marriage. I don’t understand how a church with the name Jesus Christ in its title doesn’t have an “official position” on war, torture, healthcare, the environment, the death penalty, and yes, illegal immigration. Moral issues go beyond right-wing boilerplate like gays and abortion, and the church’s silence on these issues is perplexing. Then again, perhaps I’m foolish for thinking I know how the church would come down on these topics that strike me as morally important.