I don't want to threadjack the other thread.

I have been thinking a great deal about this topic lately, and it seems to me that [current] Western world religions (even if they are "Eastern," or tribal, in their historical origins) tend to be either "rules" based, or "principles" based....and this philosophical division leads to wide-ranging, real life, consequences across different cultures (or mini-cultures within a given national culture).

In the other thread, there was discussion about how "being perfect" (defined as following each of the LDS church's dictates faithfully) was the overarching behavioral/intellectual/spiritual goal of life. Knowing the "rule," acknowledging the rule, and (to the utmost extent possible) carrying out that rule is the goal of what is, in essence, a Mormon "life well lived."

In the "rules"-religion part of the overall world spectrum, I would include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholicism, some (primarily evangelical) Christian denominations and groups, Islam, Sikhism, and perhaps Zoroastrianism as well.

In the "principles" groups, growth (both individual growth, as well as collective group growth) is generally always in progress, and there is a constant re-thinking of those general principles going on within the group. In "principles" groups. rules often become points of (intellectual/spiritual/pragmatic) departure, which may (in three-dimensional life) include either a highly thoughtful REINTERPRETATION of "the" rules (as they have existed), or alternatively, a genuinely new understanding (a "deepening") of what the INTENT of the rules once originally was....often occurring simultaneously with (for example) a particular "rule" diminishing in practice, or even actually in the process of "dissolving" (if we could view this evolution in hindsight).

In the principles group, I would include Judaism and Hinduism (both of which, in radically different ways, are evolving quite rapidly right now), Buddhism, Jainism (as I understand it; this is not a religion I know much about), and some of the "Western"-world tribal religions (Hopis, other Pueblos, etc.).

(Hinduism right now, in particular, is engaged in a literally global, intra-group, "nationalistically" active, and in some cases downright dangerous, struggle--which, in it simplest form, can be understood as a "rules" vs. "principles" conflict. My perception is that some segments of Islam are in a parallel struggle, which is quite obviously becoming, at least in certain sectors of Muslim life (women, LGBTQ Muslims, thoughtful Muslim intellectuals and Muslim creative people, and what amounts to 21st-century slavery), very seriously punitive--even, with some apparently increasing frequency, lethal within certain Islamic sub-groups.)

I also see certain African tribal groups actively struggling, at this moment, trying (with mixed results) to transcend some of the given "rules" of their tribal beliefs, in the hoped-for prospect of evolving those "rules" into more positive, and more humanly satisfying, philosophical "principles." (This is at least one of the reasons why Christian missionaries of all kinds find tribal Africans to be comparatively "easy" to convert--the Christian missionaries are sort of "selling" something which has at least the possibility of satiating an individual's felt inner hunger.)

My nevermo conclusion is that the LDS Church is facing a future where the structurally necessary (as I see it), always continuing, emphasis on "the rules" is going to result in an ever-increasing shrinkage of the active membership.

The problem, as I (again: I am nevermo) see it, is that the LDS church has, in effect, no "principles" (philosophical, spiritual, intellectual, pragmatic, scientific, or historical) to "go back to"--and, therefore, possesses nothing of lasting value to "reinterpret" or to "more deeply understand"--so, when a Mormon finds himself/herself yearning for depth, or seeking something along the lines of general human advancement by that person's standards, the only way to achieve this is to leave the closed religious structure of Mormonism in order to be free enough to begin the inner journey of exploring elsewhere.

I do not see any logical alternative, because the impetus towards individual spiritual and intellectual development, once it appears in any given person, tends to constantly strengthen and become more internally "demanding"--while the "field" of LDS philosophical, religious, and scientific "depth" continues its apparent transition towards increasingly-felt infertility.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 04:38PM by Tevai.

Latter-day Saint. For some reason the "d" isn't capitalized.

Bricket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Latter-day Saint. For some reason the "d" isn't
> capitalized.

I changed it.

Thank you!!

That's one of the rules!

I don't know that I agree with some of this. Here's why:

I think the most obvious determination of Rules vs. Principles groups is to look at the followers who are devoted to following the purest form of the religion: usually the Orthodox types. These are the ones not spinning what was actually taught.

Tevai's paragraph strikes me as a way to make the religion something different than it was originally (not that there is anything wrong with that):

>In the "principles" groups, growth (both individual growth, as well as collective group growth) is generally always in progress, and there is a constant re-thinking of those general principles going on within the group. In "principles" groups. rules often become points of (intellectual/spiritual/pragmatic) departure, which may (in three-dimensional life) include either a highly thoughtful REINTERPRETATION of "the" rules (as they have existed), or alternatively, a genuinely new understanding (a "deepening") of what the INTENT of the rules once was originally....often occurring simultaneously with (for example) a "rule" diminishing in practice, or actually in the process of "dissolving" (if we could view this evolution in hindsight).

There is no better example of a Rules group than the Old Testament and Judaism. The attempt to change that is admirable, but the workarounds with "reinterpretation" are transparent: They are still trying to satisfy the rules while justifying they aren't. It's thoughtful spinning.

Other religions appear to do the same thing with time. They need an excuse to not actually follow the religion while cherry picking what they will still follow. Evolution of the religion involves trying to explain why something was OK (from God!) then, but not now.

I can't figure out if I respect more the ones who actually follow the religion with no apologetics and are true to what is written, or the one who creatively change and de-emphasize parts of the religion.

I agree with the general premise though. The more controlling the God, the more exact the rituals need to be.

All the religions seem to be able to satisfy the individual's need to be a rules person or a principle person, IMO. I think it might be more of a personal choice of how to live the religion than a group choice for how it is interpreted.

I think if Mormons had 2000 years, they could easily change to a Principles group, completely explaining away what JS actually taught as gospel. The adaption process (aka reinterpretation) appears to be part of the process to keep people in the tent who aren't willing to actually follow the religion by the letter as it originally was practiced. At least Mormons have a process using current prophet and revelation to explain how God wants everyone to be following the religion today. Other religions just flat out waffle.

“I can't figure out if I respect more the ones who actually follow the religion with no apologetics and are true to what is written, or the one who creatively change and de-emphasize parts of the religion.”

I’m glad the Jews don’t follow a lot of what’s in Leviticus.

If you include the non-secular, science is principles-based.

I agree with this.

There are a number of Jewish sects that even today are extremely focused on rules. There are likewise strictly observant Catholics as well as new-order Catholics. Mormonism has sometimes headed in that direction but the church leaders always forestalled such a change, leaving nothing but an all-or-none choice for members of that community.

It may be relevant that religions become principles-based when they are foundering as religions and transitioning into philosophies. That's what happened around 600 BCE in Greece, when philosophers stopped talking about the gods and started talking about an abstract God. It is also largely true of Christianity after the two World Wars, when it was no longer as easy to believe in an omnipotent and loving deity. Christianity then grew more principles-based and ultimately died out. Philosophical Judaism has more staying power because the sense of ethnic identity and community is so deeply entrenched.

It's probably true that religions are both "rules" and "principles" based at the same time, just for different people and in different places. The bulk of any faith may fall more towards one end of the spectrum or the other, but there is never a time when all adherents can be categorized the same way--and the orthodox always deny that the philosophical believers are true members of the faith.

The LDS church stands out because it has no tolerance for ideological diversity and evolution. In Mormonism the transition for many was underway in the 1980s; the old Poehlman speech, before it was re-recorded, made that point. He said that Mormon doctrine and rules were intended to bring people to a spiritual point at which they would grow out of a rules-based faith and move towards their own relationship with God. But the church killed that speech and the ideas it embodied. The brethren likewise killed the transformation when they expelled the September Six in the early 1990s and yet again when they tightened up in the late 2000s.

The price the LDS church paid for quashing the free thinkers, if I can employ that term, was the faith sterilization. There isn't any doctrine anymore, and there's precious little discussion of it. So, in the absence of a shared history and ethnicity like Jews enjoy, what's left to hold people together?

Fear is what holds the faithful under the shrinking umbrella.

Even the fear is dissipating. . .

In large part because no one believes the doctrine anymore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 06:25PM by Lot's Wife.

Did anyone catch Alain De Botton's Ted Talk "What Can Atheism Learn From Religion?" It's very interesting and suggests that even though the doctrines of religion are all wrong, its the ritualistic, moralistic, communal aspect of religion that one could embrace.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753462331/alain-de-botton-what-can-atheism-learn-from-religion



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2019 10:53PM by pumpkingirl.