I am getting to the point of not trusting organized religion, at least any that has to do with the Christian Bible. It's not like the people are bad, I think most of all the people are good people, but I don't trust the system as a whole.

My own personal religion is rather amorphous!

I had a great (albeit very short) conversation with Jake, my practically 13 yo son, in the car (of course, that's the place where your surly child appears to be OK with talking) (OK enough parenthesis!)

Anyhow, we were talking about high school and college, and I told him a former football coach of his didn't understand why I wouldn't want to send Jake to O'Day Catholic school, which has one of the best HS football teams in the country and is always scouted for college scholarships. Which led to us being "Jewish" and him saying he was an atheist but liked being Jewish because he thought it was cool. So I said that he liked being a member of the tribe more than the religion. Then we got onto the difference between aetheism and agnostic (I lean towards agnostic myself), and he realized he was an agnostic.

I was rather thrilled to have that conversation with him.

This whole memory came from Jackie's statement because I tend to distrust all organized religioius institutions as being more about power than anything else. Except maybe the Buddhists. This is NOT to say that I distrust anyone who is a member of any religious institution, in my opinion we're all just on different paths to find the same answers of What is Life? What is Love?

That always bothered me when I was a kid. I think I was pretty objective because I was raised without any religion, and I thought it seemed improbable that each group thought theirs was the "right" religion, and everyone else was wrong (or even "doomed"!). It didn't make sense then, and it still doesn't make sense now!

You know, the more I learn about different religions, the less any of them make sense. It's hard to believe in the one true god and the one true religion when you find out how many religions are claiming that for themselves.
I start thinking about who benefits from the rules, rather than how I can be a better person.

These are all fine examples of some of the weird stuff. I guess my issue with it has been that most objections to their religion have to do with things that they do or believe that don’t affect anyone but themselves, so I’m not sure why people have such a problem with it (an obvious exception to this rule is their position and political activity regarding gay marriage, which I’ll admit is a big one). I don’t think the polygamy issue counts, because “real” mormons don’t condone it, but I think it has a lot to do with the negative perception people have had over the years.

Yeah but look closely at the theology of most religious groups and you will find some weirdness. Ritual cannibalism and sin eating isn't particularly mainstream either, or wouldn't be if we weren't habituated to it.

I think the reason many hardline Christians don't think of Mormons as such is because for them Christ is the ONLY prophet, whereas of course the whole premise behind the Mormons is there have been and will be many other prophets of God.

The Mormon church is full of nice, kind, generous people, I'm sure. It has a very violent past, which is true of many religions. My problem is that it presents itself as a mainstream, family-friendly religion, and yet many of its teachings are not mainstream at all. The underwear is a small example. I don't know if they still teach this, but it was taught that if a man had enough children that he would become god of his own planet when he died and that's how the god of our planet got his planet. That's why men wanted to have as many wives and kids as possible. They have temples, but only certain members of the church are allowed in the temples, just because you are a mormon doesn't mean you can go in the temple. They go back and sort of retroactively baptize people that have been dead for years--that's why they do all the geneology research they do, and when a person becomes a full-fleged mormon, or however it is phrased, they take vows that if they reveal certain things, then they will be executed by having their throats cut. To me, that stuff is not mainstream. There's more, too, but I can't remember the details. I think it's kind of like deceptive advertising.

Well I think there are reasons, I don't know that they are particularly good reasons all of them, but. For one its a comparatively recent religion and for whatever reason its harder to accept a recent prophet than an ancient one. Two, there are some fairly dubious practices and behaviors in the not very distant past. Three, I'd say only in the last ten years or so have I really had any idea what Mormonism was except that weird thing that people belonged to over in Utah that used to be polygamist. I think the LDS church is making more of an effort now to inform outsiders about the religion and that's probably a good thing in terms of acceptance.

Yeah, I certainly don't think Mormonism is perfect, but I've never really understood why it gets so much negative attention compared to other Christian religions (or why some people think they're not even Christian?!).

Merci, Bunny!

Zut alors, I just want to praise our fearless moderator for keeping up with the thread naming!! I do love these crazy rambling titles.

I think there's a lot of things to criticize Mormonism about, but its sci-fi-ness isn't one. I associate sci-fi with space stuff, and I remembered hearing something about other planets with Mormonism, therefore: Mormon=space=sci-fi. As for the magic underwear, I have heard former Mormons refer to it as that, so that's what I called it. It seemed that there was some other power to it besides just the modesty thing. Perhaps they were bitter, with good reason, I imagine.

One of my all-time-favorite SF novels is from Card, Pastwatch The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, under-appreciated IMO. Some of Card's work has an element of evangelism in it, but most of it is indirect, e.g. character ethics as an example for readership. It's almost always well-crafted fiction.

I wouldn’t say Mormonism is a sci-fi religion. I have known several Mormons, and they are actually just like really friendly Christians. From what I understand, the underwear is meant to keep you from wearing clothing that is too revealing (so if you’re wearing a tank top with spaghetti straps, your special underwear would be showing so you would know that the shirt is inappropriate). This is all third-hand info, but I’m pretty sure it’s not meant to be magical. I don’t know, I feel sort of protective of Mormons because I think they get a bad rap when most of them are really kind, generous people.

I read Ender in Exile, and I think it's worth reading if you loved Ender's Game. I was expecting to feel like it just hashed out what we already knew, but I think the time devoted to Ender's thoughts in the aftermath of the Bugger war was time well spent. There were definitely subplots that I thought could have been axed, though.

I just refuse to read anything by Card that's political or non-fiction. I won't have his real life psycho thoughts interfering with my Ender love. :)

Lori -- no, I haven't heard about that one. Very interesting. I might be willing to get that out of the library. I might also contemplate the phrase "beating a dead horse", but of course I'll reserve judgement until after I read it.

Mindy -- He also wrote a book (originally a poignantly creepy novella in Fantasy & Science Fiction) called Lost Boys in which he deliberately used aspects of his own biography and details about his family to populate the story. It was presented in first person, with himself as the narrator. There's a scene in which he goes to a conference with a colleague, and tries to hide his Mormon underwear from the other person. I became obsessed with trying to figure out what that meant; it wasn't easy in those pre-Internet days.

I read that Mormons do believe that ultimately they and their families each get their own planet after death.

Mormonism is a kind of sci-fi religion isn't it? Aren't there other planets and beings and stuff involved in Mormon cosmology? And magic underwear. I heard there was magic underwear.

Yeah I couldn't get into the Shadow books either. And when I said Card's latest book, I meant the just-published Ender one, did you know about that? It takes place right after Ender's Game. I'm curious to know if it's worthwhile.

I loved Ender's Game, and enjoyed Speaker for the Dead only slightly less, and Xenocide somewhat less than that. I thought that conceptually the Shadow books were a cool idea, but I disliked the prose. Most of his recent books have felt forced and false to me.

I agree Sarah, his essays are EXTREMELY disturbing, and I'm so glad I read Ender before I knew anymore about him other than that he was a Mormon (which is no big deal for me). Because Ender is and always will be one of my favorite books. I've enjoyed some of the other Ender books as well, especially SPeaker For The Dead.

Has anyone read his latest one?

Ugh.

He is a devout Mormon with a bully pulpit. I intend no disrespect to any Mormons on this list. I have loved several of his books and short stories, and he seems to be a well liked guy among his peers, but I have found his political columns to be personally offensive.

Aww, man, is he a right-wing whack job?

Get it from the library, and read it before you read any of his political columns.

Holy crap, Sarah Pi! I don't think I've ever seen a book that has been read by so many (34!) of my Goodreads friends! (And so well-rated by them.) Apparently this is something I need to read!

Oh.....and warm :-)

No, no Larry! I like it down here......safe and cosy!

Orson Scott Card, for all his political looniness, did a great job with the no-real-up-or-down in Ender's Game.

I will definitely encourage whatever kids I end up with (I'm hoping to foster and adopt if I ever have a financially stable life.) to engage their curiousity about space.

I find contemplating no-real-up-or-down to be very comforting, oddly enough. But then again, I am an oddball.

Maybe your children (or you children's children's children) will be space explorers, Mindy. Most people are emotionally attached to up and down as never changing.

I really like thinking about the fact that there's no up and down in space.

Every so often the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field flips. This has happened many times over the billions of years the planet has had a field. Some scientists are saying that there are signs that this may happen again soon. Soon, of course, could be within the next 50,000 years ....

No one is really sure what the implications of this flip might be for us the riders of this spaceship Earth.

I think Debbie would be in favor of her part of the globe being on the true north side of things for a change. Would we have to turn all of our maps and globes over? Or can we come to grips with the fact that there is no such thing as up and down in space?

Leslie, that book sounds fascinating, thanks for mentioning it.

I heart Karen Armstrong!

Magnetic north moves b/c of the Earth's wobble (a.k.a. precession), right Isaiah?

No I haven't, that does sound interesting.

Has anybody read the book "The Bible" by Karen Armstrong? It's part of a series called Ten Books that Changed the World and it's really interesting. It says that it is a "biography" of the Bible, but what I'm finding really interesting is how she goes through and shows the different ways people in different places and times have viewed God, studied the bible, thought about God. It's the God of the Bible of course, not all gods. She follows the various threads of thinking in the Jewish world and Christian world. It's amazing how much the perspectives differ, from the punitive, authoritarian God, to the loving God, the Savior. It's a very interesting, informative books.

Nick wrote: "If Ivan Denisovitch had Internet access in the Gulag, and joined this discussion, I'm sure he would say "Oh comrade Stalin, I really don't understand you, but I'm sure I well...one day".
"

BRAVO BRAVO and lots of hahahahas!

Poor misunderstood Stalin. Awwwww.

Geographical north is also called true north, magnetic north wanders around little bit and the magnetic north pole is generally not in quite the same place as geographical north pole.

Ever so grateful for the confusion.

Carlie wrote: "Can someone please point me in the direction of false north?"

Here you go, Carlie:
Oliver North on Wikipedia.

Can someone please point me in the direction of false north?

Welcome to True North, Nick!

If Ivan Denisovitch had Internet access in the Gulag, and joined this discussion, I'm sure he would say "Oh comrade Stalin, I really don't understand you, but I'm sure I well...one day".

I was never one to simply buy into what I was taught. I did not get the warm fuzzy version either. I guess I was presented with both but the vengeful hell fire God definitely got more pulpit time. But I love the Pentecostal church...they know how to party. And as long as they have people's best interest at heart and genuinely feel like they are doing the right thing, I cannot fault them.

My own understanding of God has evolved over time and probably will continue to do so. I cannot count how many times I've suddenly come into the realization of what a verse means and how puzzled I am by the fact that I never saw it before even though the words are clearly stated.

edit: right now I believe that my understanding of God is greatly sourced in my own motherhood. As I love my child and want the very best for her and try to give her that with unconditional love and firm discipline, i begin to understand how God must view his creation.

The interesting things about texts which persist over time (like the Constitution and the Bible, e..g.) is that they are rather ambiguous and open to interpretation. If they were very specific they likely wouldn't live beyond their own times, so each person who interacts with an interpretable text can interpret as he or she will, inevitably influenced by larger forces (parents, teachers, ministers, on up to society), of course. There is much in the Bible that one can interpret as demonstrative of a loving and benevolent deity, but there is also as much (some would say more) that would seem to paint Yahweh in a very ugly light. I'm happy that you have been able to find comfort in the first interpretation. My ex-husband was also Pentecostal and the warm fuzzy version is not what he got at all. He didn't even interpret Jesus (nevermind Yahweh 'cause He's all Old Testament and all) as loving and kind. The version of Christianity he got clung to that verse about Jesus coming with a sword! No peace-loving hippie Jesus in his church! We used to argue about liberal interpretations of the Bible all the time. Also, we used to argue about whether or not I was still saved since I got saved at like 12 or so and my religion (Baptist) taught that once you're saved, you're good! But his Pentecostals taught that you can lose your savedness, so you better not fuck up!

I was raised Pentecostal and as far as sadistically beating humans into submission, that is not the account I get from the Bible.

Well, we don't actually see God doing anything one way or another, but one of the arguments "against" the Abrahamic deity is that he ('cause of course he's male, with a HUGE godstick, btw) seems to be rather sadistic in his dominion over us. I don't know what religion you were raised with, but the Baptist God we got was all about beating humans into submission, and I don't think that interpretation of him is all that unreasonable given the biblical accounts of him.

Um, that's a big "us" you've got there. I don't really feel that God has dominion over me.