Why I don't care about polygamy, the B of A scrolls, B of M

[SeattleUte]

Horses, etc.

To me it's very simple. In terms of spirituality the Western world is divided into two groups: those who accept the Hebrew model for God, and those that don't.

[I think you know what I mean by the Hebrew model for God. If you don't, here is a brief explanation: Out of the milieu of earliest Western civilization in the ancient Middle East and Misopotamia, there emerged a tiny, seemingly insignificant kingdom (seemingly at that time, that is), that adhered to a radically unique, even subversive concept of the divine—a single, jealous God with human attributes (a propensity to anger, and for sadness and disappointment, etc.) who made a covenant with His chosen people (these Hebrews) that certain benefits would inure to them if they followed His commandments. Further, inherent in this concept of the divine is the tenet that God communicates in subtle spiritual ways to all His chosen people, and more explicitly to special representatives of His chosen people. Originally, His chosen people were the Hebrews, freed from bondage in Egypt, and passing through the waters of the Red Sea and one day on to Canaan, their promised land. Later, after the advent of Christ, the Hebrews’ original idea exploded in popularity as the chosen people became all those who passed through the waters of baptism, and professed faith in Christ.

Christianity’s eventually explosive popularity was partly due to Hebreism’s original concept of God being enriched by Greek philosophy. Conditions in the Holy Land were ideal for this fusing considering that since Alexander the Great, Greek culture (including Romanized Greek clulture) had been predominant in the area, as the Hebrews stubbornly clung to their longstanding outlook and story of their interaction with God.

To many of us who grew up in the West—certainly those of us raised as Mormons—the Hebrews’ original concept of God (after millennia) has become so ingrained that we took it for granted that this was the only possible manifestation and character of the divine. It seemed intuitive and right; even allowing for the possibility of there being no God, it still has never occurred to many Americans that God could be anything other than (generally) as the Hebrews taught us.]

I include in the first group all believing Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, what have you, and in the second, everything from Atheists to those who have rejected participation in any organized religion because they believe literal acceptance of any faith's precepts is personally impractical because of the irrationality or implausibility of those precepts, yet they continue to vaguely believe in a deity on aesthetic principles if nothing else.

The problem that many raised Mormons run into when they reject their Mormon faith is that they go on presuming that the Hebrew model is the only available one for God. This is understandable because this model for God is so deeply ingrained in our culture it's virtually embedded in our DNA. Thus many apostates become expert in minutia about the Book of Abraham scrolls, anthropological and natural evidence contradicting interpretations of the Book of Mormon that have been accepted since inception of the Church, etc. Why stop there? Ever consider whether the Bible would withstand rigorous and objective scrutiny any better than the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.? Of course everyone has, and of course it wouldn't.

Thus those who reject a literal faith in Mormonism really should be critiquing not just Mormonism but the Hebrew model for God itself. They may decide, as I have, that the Hebrew model seems patently implausible, but it has served some sublimely potent, positive purpose in the story of mankind that is to a large extent inexplicable (yes, it is at best a net benefit since the Hebrew model has had its drawbacks).

Over the years it's become clear to me that Mormons (including myself) demonstrate a case of arrested development. In the Eitheenth and Nineteenth Centuries, in the latter stages of the Enlightenment, there was in Europe and the United States a great intellectual ferment generated by addressing this question of the legitimacy of the Hebrew model for God. This is what gave rise to such renown philosphers as Kant, Neitchze, Darwin (yes, I think he was a philospher too), and others. Joseph Smith was primarily reacting to this in my view.

Meanwhile, as Mormonsim grew the mainstream decided that the Hebrew model was implausible. No great philosphers have been born for a hundred years or so, have they? This is why. The great philosophical questions seemingly have been settled. Thus, you have half the people going to church in Europe and the U.S. blue states as you did even fifty years ago. After the Hebrew model was ascendant, even apparently triumphant, for 1700 years, it is now in serios decline. Mormonism, the Southeastern U.S., third-world Catholicism, and Islam represent its final strongholds. Despite alarmist statements by secular humanists about a rising tide of theocracy, it's clear that in the long run the Hebrew model is in decline and may ultimately be in for extinction. The seeming radicalization and mobilization of the U.S. Christian right is really a last ditch digging in for survival.

Thus, what Waters calls an impending collision between Mormonism and modern society is really Mormonism finally experiencing what the rest of the world experienced beginning up to 300 years ago and has (seemingly) long been settled in the mainstream.

This is my opinion, anyway.