Posted by:
Jesus Smith
(
)
Date: February 06, 2012 07:49AM
...to pretend to be an investigator?
I just got an email from the missionary in this story. It's been almost a year. He's secretly out, but biding his time until he can separate himself financially from his parents.
The following relates what happened about a year ago. This is the first week. I'll try to write up the second week and the fireside event which is where it toppled for the elder.
---
Just for kicks. And the off chance that some honest moron, I mean mormon, might actually have a decent thought process and just needs the path illuminated, I went today to church.
I played the skeptical investigator role, purposely arriving at the end of sacrament so I wouldn't have to sit through it much. I was guided to the missionaries by a hall-grazer who asked me what brought me there. My excuse, which is not far from truth, is that as a long-time rationalist & scientist I spent the past year thinking about what religion might offer me. (What I didn't say is that I had already concluded it has nothing to offer.) The missionaries were actually pretty good. The senior companion was obviously sold on the TBM life. The junior, not so much. He seemed to be struggling with his own testimony a little. First of all, he is a minority. Second of all, he had a little rebelliousness in him with his slightly longish hair, tie loosened and his mildly irreverent joking. He is the perfect target.
I requested that the missionaries include any members who might have a background in science or who are quite educated, as I would like to get the perspective of academic members. They could only round up an attorney. Yeah, I know, mormon attorney--the used car salesmen of member-missionaries. After my summary that I was agnostic, did not accept assumptions of god, faith or bible, the attorney ignored this and continued trying to rest his case on biblical logic. Again and again I had to explain that I was looking from the agnostic perspective and that mormonism offered one interesting aspect others didn't for me: the claim of having a unique ancient american history with potential of finding evidence to support their radically different take on the region and the peoples. He then asked me to give him my best guess as to the nature of god. I responded that if god even existed at all, I had no pre-conceptions about god-- that god could be evil or good or neither or both; could be all powerful or mostly powerful, an alien or a pan-dimensional supreme intelligence, which no one could recognize. That frustrated him. He couldn't deal with someone that would not try to define god. Then he said, at least you will agree that science won't find him. I said I disagree. To me, science was probably the best way to determine god or no god. Again that frustrated him. Why? he asked. Because, I replied, as most assume, god is the creator or originator of existence and the universe; that being the case, I would assume god left a logical system for determining how to work physical nature and by implication science seems like the best clue to understanding god's working, if god is the source of it. The attorney got off on a tangent on how science could not explain any better than religion how the universe or we came to be. I said one word: Evolution? he almost scoffed at me as he told me how wrong science is on that matter. On what basis? Cause it just didn't make sense to him, an attorney. I shrugged and mumbled something about not being able to continue a coherent discussion with him. I turned to the missionaries and continued my discussion with them. He excused himself to some meeting or another.
The discussion with the missionaries was better. We discussed faith, and how I felt it was a bad premise--to trust without "disputation" or "seeing" in what others claimed (per their reading of Ether 2:27, if memory serves) and that it would set one up to being scammed. I gave them the televangelist argument about giving money to untrusted scam artists based on hyped emotion and trusting someone claiming to have god on their side. I explained to them that I would like to know how they knew the assumptions and faith they had were not misplaced. That went into Moroni's promise. I asked how it was manifested in a way that I could recognize. That went to burning bosoms and peaceful minds. I listed the Hindu Chakras, Ismalic Hajj, Buddha higher-consciousness, Penecostal spiritual flame as examples of the same experience, with the leading question--if all these major religions have the same burning of the bosom, how can I use that as a truth meter when they all say different things? they had no answer except their own personal spiritual experience. I said that was nice, but not helpful to me because I get the same "we are the truth" answer from others in Hinduism, Protestantism, Buddhism, and Islam--some of which are so bosom-elated and sure of mind that they are burning their bosoms and souls in suicide bombings. Also that science has shown repeatable ways to get moral elevation in the chest (Jonathan Haidt's work), spiritual presence experiences (Michael Persing's work) or afterlife glimpses (Kevin Nelson's work), that I have to wonder if the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation or hormones or neurotransmitter analogs (ketamines) were testifying repeatedly of science or of god. They realized the dilemma then. Warm fuzzies were not held in monopoly by Moism, and furthermore could be called up at will by science--then how can they be used as a god-sourced truth meter about just mormonism?
I summarized for them my dilemma: I can't rely on feelings, even strong spiritual manifestations or visions to direct me, as they are so varied and inconsistent or triggered by non-religious sources. As such, in order to determine if there is any basis for leading a spiritual life, I would need to find claims that I can verify by trusted, repeatable and peer-review sources. Like science, which time and time again show us fruitful results in technology.
They jumped on that and the book of mormon became their focus, as a potential source of proof through archeology. I listen to them spout silly claims of chiasmus, white gods in Amerindian lore, and so forth. As they read from 3 Nephi, I wrote a list of the passages that would be verifiable by archeology. such as the face of the land changing at the apocalyptic destructions by a spirit world jehova, the mass conversion of a culture to christianity and the destruction of one group of believers by apostate idolators.
I told them these were great starters for me. Because if a Newfoundland visit or two by a few dozen Norse sailors left labs of evidence, surely a nation full of hebrews would have littered the lanscape with evidence. Said I would study these claims and elements of alleged history, that would startle the scientific community if true. They told me a GA was coming in Feb to speak on the topic of BoM evidences, and that due to my knowledge of science, they would try to get me an interview with him. I said, Cool! But I don't count on such, obviously.
There was one other positive result: A leggy, gorgeous blonde showed up as we sat in the foyer discussion and kept eyeing me in my gentile apparel. (Damn, why do I still find mormon women so sexy??) I think I will return. :-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2012 12:15PM by Jesus Smith.