How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…

Will you have internet access an the institution?

Cause if yes … long walks on the big well manicured lawn, lots of jello … I can think of worse fates!

~

It’s mean to have someone read that at nearly 1AM their time. The saliva dripping down my chin could get me institutionalized.

I think so. Enough and more than enough, heaven!!

I feel this way about those big sugar cookies with pink frosting that you can buy at the Seven-Eleven.

~

Nick, it occurs to me that you often say things I agree with but I rarely say so because I only silently ascent. So let me say that everything you say that follows the above quote was very well thought out and interesting and I agree with it. I do believe “ethical hedonism” is a fully realized ethical system — just as you describe.

I don’t necessarily see it as taking one the whole way to true morality, but I think it gets really really close. Probably closer than any of us will live out in a life time. So I feel ethical hedonists should be considered viable “believers” after a fashion.

(I also think it has a few logical problems worth exploring… but for another time.)

One of my favorite ethical hedonists, btw, is Richard Garriot who is a computer game designer and self styled philosopher. For those that grew up with computer games like me, he made the Ultima series which was based around virtuous living.

I didn’t say you needed to start your own church and proclaim yourself a prophet. I said that you already had for all intents and purposes.

I suppose, to be fair, there might be more than one definition of “church” and “prophet” but from a Mormon view point you have all the necessary qualifications:

1. Claims to revelation from God – check
2. Claims to having a unique truth or message from God that all must accept or be “apostate” and maybe damned – check
3. Prophecy of the future – check
4. Authoratative interpretation of scripture that clarifies God’s real intent (i.e. by this I mean “closes down all other possible readings”) – check
5. Pronouncing God’s judgments upon others – check

You may be a “church” (organization or congregation) of one, but you are still a Church. And in so far as others disagree with you, you believe them to be wrong or even apostate. So you are also claiming to be the one true Church (of one person) of God and not just one possible interpretation of truth.

For the record, I didn’t say there was anything wrong with this — though I personally have my doubts. I just pointed out that it was a fact as per how I understand those terms.

The rest of my comments were to point out that all the issues you had with the LDS Church were inevitable if you ever tried to have a body of believers that attempt unity of belief. Measuring goals that don’t look upon the heart, for example, are the only possible goals at all. Can you imagine GBH getting up and saying “we are 20% more pure of heart this year than last year.” It would be cool if it were possible though. But unfortunately it’s impossible… so I see little reason to entertain the possibility that it’s a sign of apostacy.

But you have now clarified that you believe all religious organizations are man-made (except your own “church of one” of course) so none of what I said on that front logically matters any more. I retract all my comments along those lines to you because you made them irrelevant when you explained yourself further.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that people need to pick their own spiritual path and picking a customized one is a tried and true way and I don’t necessarily believe it to be bad. You have a good moral belief system as far as I can tell (I see no advocacy of use of arms to force belief or something like that) so I think your “religion of one” is a good thing in general and the world is better for it.

I am as willing to call you “brother in the Gospel” as I am any fellow Christian or non-Christian believer (or even willing for any non-believing ethicist.) And I believe I could learn from your ideas even if I think a great many of them are wrong — as we can all learn from each other.

But I also believe you have started to act the role of a prophet with an exclusive truth. (Again, individual defintions may vary. I do not wish to be an offender for a word. So let me just say you claiming to be a “prophet” as I, as a Mormon, understand that term. And likely as most people understand that term.)

Let me assure you that you are not alone in believing yourself to be God’s one true prophet to the world. It’s a common thing that happens to people in all religions, as far as I can tell. I honestly believe “God’s revealed religion of one” was the single most common religion I encountered while on my mission. And rarely if ever was it understood as a personal take on truth. Far more common — as with you — it was seen as something to be evangelized to the world for the world to know about, repent, and accept as the truth it was intended to be.

I didn’t realize I needed to start my own church and proclaim myself a prophet before I could present my studies of the scriptures in this forum. Being relatively new to this part of the blogosphere, I appreciate your interest in helping me keep the social contract of the group.

Nick, how you you like to read the book and let me know what you think before I try it on my agnostic molecular biologist son?

Hedonism is a pretty extreme word! I certainly have been very self-indulgent, even at the expense of other people. But, even at that, there may have been days of hedonism, but I wouldn’t have used that word to describe my life. I’ve only known a couple of hedonists. Actually, I’m not sure if I’ve ever known a hedonist.

I do think there is something to Dostoevsky’s ‘without God, everything is permitted.’ That is, unless there is an image of goodness that transcends the self and has more authority than the self, then the self is left as the final measure of goodness: as in, to thine own self be true as the most authoritative answer to life. What do you called a society that has this as its final measurement of action? You call that a doomed society. But even at this, note, however, that where religion is mistaken as synonymous with ‘the true and living’ God there is so much room for oppression in the name of God, holding out a fixed image of God, that I highly prefer the weaker model of a social compact with minimized restrictions on the individual, and generalized moral notion that attempts to gently and ‘without compulsory means’ curtail selfishness. Note how the various forms of oppression, both religious and atheistic, hold out an image to which the individual must conform – and that image is not in the person of Jesus freely discovered and accepted. (note that also in Mormon culture)

Ray would certainly be an excellent bishop. But, he doesn’t have time for that as his blogging habit is fairly foregrounded at this time. (Seriously, he is likely do more good here, for now. Bishop is pretty time intensive.)

~

Makes you think about how much talent is being wasted by discounting about half the adult membership…

I hasten to point out, however, that this bishop was a nutcase, and emphatically NOT your average LDS bishop. The same bishop (a full-time seminary teacher) would get up in sacrament meeting and tell the congregation of married university students that they were all much too young to reliably handle any of their callings. Then he began telling us in sacrament meetings about dreams he had, in which he was a savior figure sent to “rescue” the ward members, who were entirely unaware of the imminent spiritual and physical dangers about to engulf them. He was sort of scary.

I am as big a “support and sustain your local leadership” guy as anyone; I just don’t believe I am required to accept everything any local leader says without question. The entire council system in the Church argues against that proposition.

(Btw, I disagree vehemently with any interpretation of that statement that includes local leadership in the “will never lead you astray” category. That, imo, simply is indefensible, and I don’t believe that I am obligated to do what a local leader requests – no matter the request. I’m not a big fan of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

I’m not questioning the morality of agnostics and atheists; I’m just saying that the embedded foundation of religious altruism plays a part even in their own actions toward others. Granted, I believe what I view as distorted religious arrogance that claims all will burn in Hell unless they accept Jesus in this life, which leads often to indifference and disdain and contemptible attitudes and actions, is more abominable in this context than “mere agnosticism or atheism” (meaning I think you have abetter shot at advanced glory than many adamantly self-professed Christians [including Mormons]) – but that is considered heretical, as well.

I’m ok being a heretic in that regard.

Except that, in LDS culture and teaching, a man who does something objectively wrong, but in obedience to priesthood authority, will be blessed for that obedience, and any penalty will be upon the head of the misguided priesthood leader. Is this “official” doctrine? No, hardly anything is when we parse as the LDS public affairs department does. It is still, however, a significant belief in LDS culture, and an almost necessary corellary to the emphasis on obedience to leaders.