drunkexmormonsexplain-blog

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

So my dad posted an infuriating article on facebook...

Here's the link: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-22/what-to-do-with-your-questions-according-to-1-general-authority-whos-an-expert-on-anti-church-materials-48843

After reading this absolute garbage, I was so infuriated that in the height of pettiness I decided to write a 3 page rebuttal essay. Then I realized that as much as I want to stir shit with the Mormons, I don't actually want my dad to disown me. So I'm gonna post it here instead of on my dad's facebook. It's extremely rough and overwritten, but since I have no plans to revise it I'm just gonna let it into the wild. There are a few paragraphs where the wording is too poor to convince real diehards, but it should be convincing enough for my fellow exmos at least! LONG POST AHEAD

---

Valerie Johnson’s piece, “What to do with your questions”, covers LDS leader Elder Corbridge’s visit to a BYU campus and outlines his response to concerns many members of the church have about unsavory parts of its history and current practices. It’s an effective piece of LDS propaganda: a piece of media that obscures or inflates the truth in order to advance the beliefs of an organization. As we’ll see below, not only does the piece fail to address the valid concerns of many latter-day saints, but it also uses familiar techniques to undermine the importance of those concerns in the first place. The following outlines both the inaccuracies in Corbridge’s arguments and the subtle ways in which the article discourages LDS readers from thinking critically about the issues at hand.

Let’s start with the first question in the article. “The kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as described in the book of Daniel as standing forever. The question is, will you and I stand?” Corbridge/Johnson asks. While claims about the longevity of “God’s kingdom” are unprovable, it’s evident to any non-church-funded source that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least, is dwindling. Church sources commonly claim that membership numbers are increasing, because they count all individuals who have been baptized but not ex-communicated. On the other hand, counting only active, financially-contributing members reveals that membership is declining sharply. Teens and adults who were raised in the church are leaving at a higher rate than ever. A large portion of the membership inflation reported by the church consists of individuals converted by missionaries as adults, who are counted as members until death although they often stop attending within a year.

From there, Johnson moves on to claim that attacks on the church are broad, including church doctrine that conflicts with “shifting attitudes of today”. This is a common phrase in LDS writing, used to encourage but not specifically state the idea that church doctrine, unlike the rest of the world’s social values, is permanent and unchanging. This is untrue, as many church teachings have changed with time, often shifting to become more in line with North American social norms. A famous and relatively recent example, alluded to in Johnson’s article, is the fact that black men were not allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978. Though there have been many apologetic explanations for this overdue change in doctrine, it’s hard to ignore the fact that its introduction coincided with a government warning that the church would only be able to keep its tax-free status if it got rid of its racist policies. With this and other examples, it’s clear that the church does have a historical precedent to alter teachings in order to keep up with society’s “shifting attitudes.” However, the way it’s phrased in the article contributes to the subconscious idea among many church members that society is at fault for becoming more progressive, not the church for its inability to keep up.

Changing church policy, a history of immoral doctrine, and dwindling membership statistics are only a few of the concerns plaguing modern Mormons. Corbridge and Johnson attempt to address this huge umbrella of issues with a simple response: “Answer the primary questions.” According to Corbridge, these fundamental questions about the church include: “Is there a God who is our Father? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth? Was Joseph Smith a prophet?”

The first three questions refer to the existence God, which is unprovable, and the role of Jesus Christ, a distant historical figure whose true actions in life are hard to discern. In contrast, the last question refers to Joseph Smith, a man who lived in America in the 1800s, whose life is well documented and researched. Was he, as Corbridge asks, a prophet? Researching his life, the answer is clear: hopefully not.

There’s a well of damning evidence on Joseph Smith available with some quick research. He scammed people with his treasure-hunting business, was often jailed for his crimes, and even killed others during his escape attempts. Although the church tried to cover it up for years, he is most well known for his polygamy: by the time he died in 1844, he was married to at least 27 women. The youngest of these, Helen Mar Kimball, was 14 years old. Joseph Smith was 37, which makes him a pedophile on all counts – even in 1843, when they were married, the average marriage age for women was between 20 and 22. If such a man was chosen as a prophet of God, we should question what type of God would choose him, and what type of church would follow his teachings. The church itself has not addressed these concerns, sweeping them under the rug as “lies and deception”, despite multiple sources proving their accuracy. Predictably, Johnson and Corbridge do not mention anything else about Joseph Smith in the article.

Corbridge then moves on to what he calls the “secondary questions,” which Johnson broadly generalizes as “questions about Church history, polygamy, black people and women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, different accounts of the First Vision and so on,” not going into specifics on any of these topics. Corbridge follows this up with the most bizarre claim in the entire article: “If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too or they pale in significance and you can deal with things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with without jumping ship.”

There’s a lot to get into with this statement. Firstly, the article attempts to trivialize many valid concerns about the church. For example, “Gay marriage” is used as a buzzword to cover an array of questions about the church and the LGBT+ community such as why same-sex couples aren’t allowed to be married in the church, if it’s possible for LGB members to be happy even though they’re forced to be celibate, if trans and gender non-conforming individuals are allowed to present their true identity and be fully accepted into the congregation, why children of LGB parents aren’t allowed to be baptized into the church without cutting contact with their family, and so on. These topics are trivialized by presenting them so broadly and following them up with the statement that they “pale in importance” to the primary questions. This is not the case for the LGBT+ individuals in question, or other individuals whose happiness is directly affected by any of the issues mentioned.

Secondly, the idea that some of these secondary questions are also answered by the primary questions is a bold and frankly false statement. Knowing the “correct” answers to the primary questions does nothing to answer the far more nuanced subjects of the secondary questions. A devout Mormon who firmly believes in God and knows that Joseph Smith is a prophet can still easily have questions about why God wouldn’t allow women to hold the priesthood, or how the Book of Mormon can be a historically accurate account of pre-colonial America when DNA evidence proves otherwise. It’s clear that most of these questions fall into Corbridge’s “pale in importance” category, which minimizes the real struggles that even faithful members can experience in the church.

The last part of this statement is the most telling to Corbridge’s, and more broadly the church’s response to criticism and questioning members. He says that it’s important members deal with these controversial subjects, with “things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with, without jumping ship.” According to Corbridge, Mormons should stay active in the church if they believe in the “primary questions”, even if they have doubts about the “secondary questions.” Historically, many religious groups have been formed by those who share the same primary beliefs as another sect – belief in God and Jesus Christ, for example – but differ on how the church should be run or the details about God’s doctrine. There is even history within the Mormon faith of separate factions who have split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on their different answers to the “secondary questions”, even though they share belief in God, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith with the mainstream branch of LDS faith. It doesn’t make sense for LDS members who disagree with or don’t understand controversial church doctrine to remain members, even if they believe in God, Jesus Christ, or Joseph Smith, as they can seek out other denominations that are more in line with their personal beliefs. Remaining in the church is not beneficial to their spiritual well-being or happiness. Non-believing or disillusioned members can create disharmony within the church, so it isn’t good for the health and harmony of a congregation for leaders like Corbridge to encourage those members to stay. What it is good for, though, is the church’s finances, since LDS members who want to access all the benefits of Mormonism must pay 10% of their income to the church. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that the purpose of this article is to suggest doubting members ignore their concerns and stay active, tithe-paying members.

Johnson’s section on the methods of learning is familiar to anyone experienced with religious anti-science rhetoric. Though it references the scientific method and “analytical learning” (research), those mentions are meaningless as Corbridge states “the divine method of learning ultimately trumps everything else by tapping into the powers of heaven.” This is echoed often in fundamentalist religious writing, and means that whenever scientific evidence, academic research, or social values clash with religious beliefs, believers are to ignore the facts and trust “God”, or the teachings of their church. It’s a way to shut down logical arguments from doubters or non-believers without having to think critically about church doctrine and has been discussed at length in other writing.

A somewhat amusing and unique addition to this article is the concept of “academic learning” as separate from scientific or analytical. The idea that simply reading a text can provide the reader with truth without the “analytical” step of fact-checking and resource gathering is false. After all, anyone can write a piece (such as Johnson’s) and fill it with lies. Without multiple opinions and validations, a text on its own has no truth value.

The final two sections of “What to do with your questions” move away from laughable pseudo-academic claims and give us insight into the far more insidious psychological methods the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious groups use to keep their members in order. The first section is entitled “The Presence or Absence of the Holy Ghost.” Generally, most LDS members and leaders assume the “presence of the Holy Ghost” to mean a happy, warm, and comfortable feeling. This type of feeling commonly occurs in familiar, safe settings such as churches and homes. Corbridge goes on to state that “the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ… is the absence of the Spirit of God.” In other words, if members who read about controversial church history and practices feel bad or uncomfortable while doing so, it must mean these claims are false.

The truth is that anyone who learns about information that radically disrupts their current worldview will be uncomfortable. In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leaders have so effectively hidden parts of its history from its members and lied about doing so that the discovery of things like Joseph Smith’s history of polygamy and multiple accounts of the First Vision can be shocking and upsetting. Issues dealing with the happiness of LGBT+, women, and black members of the church make many members feel guilty and sad, as they feel empathy for those who have been wronged by the church’s present or past teachings. By equating the natural and understandable feelings of sadness, guilt, and discomfort with the absence of the spirit and therefore falsehood, Corbridge convinces questioning members that they should bury those feelings and ignore their questions. This is not an acceptable way to address controversial church topics, nor is it healthy to encourage members to suppress their emotions.

The final section of the article, “Elimination”, is the final nail in the coffin telling LDS members to keep their doubts private and unanswered. Corbridge reiterates that he and God can’t answer all the member’s doubts – obvious, since he and Johnson have done nothing to address any concerns in this article – and that those who truly answer the “primary questions” will not even need answers to their further questions. This effectively combines the church’s policy of repression and communal guilt: if you are bothered by unsavory aspects of the church’s doctrine, you probably don’t believe in God or Joseph Smith. LDS doctrine already encourages a heavy amount of personal guilt for members who don’t feel they are perfectly living up to the church’s expectations, but if they voice their concerns, they now face the shame of their peers. Nobody in a faith setting wants to be known as the unfaithful member, and Corbridge’s statement is clear: if you want to be respected by your religious peers, keep those questions in.

-North

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

the famous mormon ‘gay man but married to a woman and happy’ couple is getting divorced and apologizing for the damage they did 20gayteen is so strong

http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turning-unicorn-bat-post-announce-end-marriage/.html

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

My first salty exmo post

Alright so I’m at the wedding of one of my Mormon friends (sitting outside with the kids because as a non-mormon I’m not allowed to actually go to the ceremony) and I have some Thoughts. Over the past couple of days I’ve hung out with my newly married or about to be married Mormon friends a lot more than I usually do, and I am so sick of the hetero, getting married young, Christian bullshit that I’m seeing in their lives. Of course this is particularly directed at Mormonism but I think it can also apply in many conservative Christian religions.

For those who don’t know, Mormons are not allowed have sex or live with their significant other until they get married. Mormonism also encourages getting married as soon as possible and having children right away no matter what. And on top of that it adheres to strict gender roles in every aspect of life, including marriage. From a young age, girls are taught that being a wife and a mother, taking care of a house, and raising children are the most important things a woman can do. Women are generally encouraged to pursue career paths that they can work at part time or not at all, as opposed to choosing more successful or desirable opportunities. Men on the other hand are equally pressured to be single income providers for their households, and are generally not taught many at home duties like cooking and cleaning. Men are the “heads” of household and usually represent their entire family at church functions. Only men can become any sort of leader in the church.

Before getting married today, my friend expressed to me that she wasn’t fully processing the fact that she was going to be married. She said that she was trying to put the thought of her actual wedding out of her mind and that probably once she got to the temple (where the wedding was happening) was when she’d “have her breakdown”. A little concerned, I asked her why - because she would be so excited and relieved that all the planning was over? She said no, that’s when she’d break down and wonder what on earth she was doing.

Of course hearing that my first response would have been “Maybe that’s a sign you’re not ready to get married.” But throughout the weekend, as my friend expressed feelings of anxiety and nervousness way more often than feelings of joy and excitement, the other recently married Mormon women around her would respond with “Oh that’s totally normal!”

What?

Ok - I am an unmarried atheist who lives with her girlfriend, so I will admit that my lifestyle is very far removed from a typical young married Mormon. But telling women that feeling overwhelmingly nervous and anxious instead of certain and excited is normal, right before they make one of the hugest commitments of their life? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

But think about it - of course they’re nervous. They’ve never lived with the person they’re about to get married to. They have no idea what their husbands will be like day to day. And following the trend of most Mormon boys, it’s likely that they won’t be as clean, organized, or self reliant as the women they marry. The young married Mormon women I know are constantly bemoaning the fact that their husbands never think to clean the house or run simple errands without their prompting. It’s the type of imbalance that gets laughed off in a lot of heterosexual relationships - “I’m going away for the weekend, better leave some freezer meals for my husband so he doesn’t starve!” Because of course the husband would be totally lost having to do simple house duties while the wife is away. The idea of an equal, balanced relationship seemed to be totally absurd to my Mormon friends. Picking up after and managing your man child husband is totally normal!

On top of that, all Mormon women know that they’re expected to have sex on their wedding night - something that most of them have no experience with. Since the church taboos even mentioning or talking about sex, and most Mormon children are pulled out of sex ed, these Mormon women probably don’t even know what sex really is, let alone how to make it enjoyable. They’ve likely heard myths that the first time will hurt, that it won’t be as good for them as it is for men, and that it’s their duty to their husbands. How is that a recipe for having a healthy sexual relationship with the man they are pledging their entire life to? Communication is essential to having a good sex life, and growing up in a religion that forbids even thinking about sex means developing that communication is going to take time that I’m sure most couples don’t take on their wedding night.

It makes me so angry to see Mormon women throwing their lives, careers, and potential happiness away because they’ve been indoctrinated since childhood that their only worth comes from being a wife and a mother. And what makes me extra angry is that the Mormon church normalizes this type of relationship! “Oh some days you won’t be able to stand your husband, push through it!” “Isn’t it hilarious when you go away for the weekend and your husband hasn’t bothered to clean the house?” Even though this may be common in a lot of religious people’s relationships, it shouldn’t have to be “normal”!

Maybe I’m some sort of radical new age bisexual feminist who believes that relationships can be equal, that you should marry your best friend, and that you should be happy on your wedding day, but I personally don’t want to get married unless that’s the case. And I know that a lot of Mormon relationships and relationships like them do work out, but I’m sure it’s easier to make the relationship work when it’s based on really knowing what you’re getting into before it happens. I just hope that religious young women know that they have that choice.

-North

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

Objective vs Subjective Fact

And why “Don’t force your religion on others” isn’t a thing that works

---

So we know the difference between objective and subjective, right? Objective facts are facts that are true, they have been proven by science, and they are always the same. If you say “When I drop this book, it will fall because of gravity”, that is an objective fact. We know that gravity is real, whether you believe in it or not. The book is going to fall, no matter what (barring the possibility that we are all just chilling on the moon during this conversation).

A subjective fact would be something like “I wear this crystal on a necklace and it helps me stay focused during the day”. You may believe that the crystal is having an effect on your brain, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Crystals haven’t been proven effective by science, and you’re using personal experience and maybe anecdotal evidence from others to make your claim. It may seem like a capital T True fact to you, but it’s not to everyone else. This doesn’t mean that your belief in this crystal is stupid or ridiculous, it just means that the crystal isn’t rock solid (haha get it, because geology). If you believe it works, enjoy.

The existence of God is a subjective fact. It cannot be proven or denied, and the only evidence we have for God is anecdotal a la “I felt His spirit” or “I sensed Him guiding me”. For some, this is enough to believe that God is real. For others, it isn’t. And there’s nothing wrong with believing in God or not believing in God, but we should all accept that God is subjective. His existence may be 100% guaranteed Truth to a Christian, but it won’t be for everyone else. Because God is not gravity. He’s not there for sure, with absolutely no doubt. He is believed in, not proven.

The problem we encounter here is that some Christians will not accept that the existence of God is subjective. Many people feel that anecdotal evidence and their own personal feelings about God are good enough to prove that God is an absolutely True, guaranteed thing, like gravity. It is very difficult for some Christians to accept that God’s existence is subjective. It’s real for them, but not for everyone. If you believe that God’s existence is an objective fact, you’re not only ignoring the definition of objective, but you are convincing yourself that everyone who does not believe in God is wrong and is simply missing some information, like people who don’t know that the Earth is round.

So here’s the thing. If I know that gravity is real and exists, and someone else tells me it doesn’t, I feel bad for them. How could they not know this really simple fact that we learn in science class? I should tell them gravity is real and explain it. They’ll understand the world better, they’ll be more educated, and I’ve corrected some misinformation by explaining an objective fact. But am I “forcing the idea of gravity on them”? I’d say no, I’m just telling them what’s true about the world.

Combine the previous paragraph with people who believe God is an objective fact and swap the word “gravity” for “God” and “science class” with “Sunday school”, and we’ve got a problem. Because a lot of Christians, especially Mormons, are infuriatingly nice. When they tell people about God and try to convince people to believe in God, they don’t realize that they are “forcing their religion on others”. They just think that they are sharing a fact that everyone should know about. Mormons in particular want everyone to believe in God and live a good Christian life so that everyone can have a wonderful, blessed afterlife. People who do not believe in God are people to be pitied and helped. They just haven’t heard about the fact of God yet, in the same way that uneducated people might not know the world is round. It’s not a malicious mindset of “everyone must think how I think”, it’s an attempt to help others that is misguided and unfounded.

Most celebrities and public figures don’t like to talk about religion because it’s a touchy subject. Most of them usually fall back on the neutral stance of “I think people should believe what they want to, as long as they don’t force it on others”. This sounds nice. It sounds good and neutral and like it would totally work, everyone just has to mind their own business. In fact, many Christians probably agree that you shouldn’t shove religion down someone else’s throat. But when they are standing there, Bible in hand, ready to insert it into your digestive system under the guise of “helping” and “educating”, it’s hard to believe that they know what “forcing religion on others” means.

-Nova

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

OUR FIRST ACTUALLY DRUNK POOST

Dear mormons stop gettin married so young

You’ll regret it!!

Even if you’re 19 and your husband is in the military don’t tell me that I know you

’re all the same don’t so ir

Don’t get married just to have sex don’t get married just to spawn little monsters

You should have sex before you get married so you won’t be terrified to do it on your wedding night. Also girls don’t assume you’re not going to have a good time when you have sex if you don’t have a good time it’s because you haven’t had sex. If you have sex and it’s bad it’s because you haven’t had orgasms before don’t just have sex to have orfasms

Don’t marry somebody if you don’t love them love is not the first generic looking white boy you see at. first love is a person who will do anything for you if you ask which is including your boyfriend not having sex with you if you’re not comfortable and also including peeps who don’t clean out their soup Tupperware and dont dry your dress twice

Marry someone who makes you happy not because you need to do it already. if you’re not ready slash dont love don’t do it it’s not worth kt

Have sex before marriage know what you’re doing know what you wanna do with the person you’ll beniwhf forever. first time is not always great don’t expect it to be great you’ll know when you’re haveing sex with the wrong person your know.

Marriavg is for whe you’re ready not if u not sure you wanna do it. Don’t have kids till you’re old. Mormons you’re taught to not live w your person not have sex and that’s cool but you zhouldnknowntheres another way

It’s possible to have a good amrrigw w someone you don’t know and get over it and marry someone you don’t knoe. But you should know it’s a possibility to marry someone you know and you have a choice to get to know and date for longer and not marry the first guy who wants to marry you just cause you wanna get married

Also don’t get married and have kids if you don’t want to if you want to be a cool lawyer working all the time then go that. If you wanna be a teacher and want to teacher other kids then that’s cool don’t think your worth is how many kids you have. You’re worth more don’t compromise you’re own success to have kids and a Juana

That doejztn men’s if you want to be successful and be a lawyer that you shouldn’t be maried. Find someone who us excited for you to be a cool lawyer find someone to support you cause they are our there and if they’re not then it’s not worth it find someone who suppotte.your hopes and dreams

Also just be happy

-transcrated by mod nova (new) and talked by mod North and mod kas

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

The Paradox of Christianity

Christianity (at least as I’ve encountered it) is fundamentally based on a paradox. On the one hand, Christians believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, unfailingly benevolent god. On the other hand, it can be observed by anyone that occasionally bad things happen in the world.

How is this a paradox? Well, if bad things happened because god didn’t know about them going on, that would mean he wasn’t omniscient. If bad things happened because god wasn’t able to stop them, that would mean he wasn’t omnipotent. If bad things happened because god let them happen or didn’t care, then he couldn’t be 100% all the time benevolent. So logically there can’t be any way for these two statements to be, at the same time, true.

This paradox is what most Christian sects struggle to solve, and what I’ve personally seen most doubting Christians wrestle with. There are several creative ways to skirt around this subject - some faiths believe that god can prevent bad things from happening, but chose not to interfere with humanity’s choices (seems like a nice idea, but I still have a hard time believing that an all powerful benevolent being wouldn’t step in to stop, say, a serial killer). Others believe that god has the entire universe planned out perfectly and that what we perceive as “bad things” are, in fact, good in the long run (in which case how would they be able to “answer prayers” or affect an individual’s life in any way?). There are tons of explanations and combinations of explanations but none of them really solve it for me - and I’m guessing that’s the case for most non-belivers.

However, when talking to a Christian believer about such an inherent, obvious paradox fundamental to their faith, most of them accept it and are completely unphased - which can be extremely confusing or even infuriating to those who don’t believe. That’s because most atheist/agnostic individuals are rational thinkers - they need to be able to logically process facts, and if something doesn’t make sense or doesn’t fit with logical interpretation, either it is wrong or some of the previous assumptions the logic is based on must be wrong.

What does that make believers? Calling them irrational thinkers has a lot of negative connotations - although, technically, they don’t need to rationalize or logically process their thoughts and beliefs. Spiritual thinkers is the term I like to use. Christians and other believers hold their personal spiritual experiences and beliefs to be more important than logic or rationality. They are able to believe in claims that can’t be logically explained because their faith is more true to them than explanations or facts. “God moves in mysterious ways” isn’t a cop out answer for them - it literally is the answer. The information that they feel has been passed down to them by a divine being cannot be contradicted by rationality.

I have had a lot of experience debating with strong spiritual believers, and for a long time this was extremely frustrating to me - as I know it was for several of my agnostic or atheist friends. Why was it so hard for the religious people in my life to understand that their beliefs are contradictory, or just don’t make sense? Once I realized that we were operating on completely different ways of thinking - me processing information rationally and them spiritually - it helped me realize that there really was no way I could “just make them understand.” It’s not a conclusion that I loved coming to, especially since it means that a lot of my close family and relatives can’t really understand or respect my beliefs, but it helped me understand religious people a little better.

So what’s my rational explanation to the paradox of Christianity? Well, since I obviously know that bad things happen (assuming that I have a definition of morality and am capable of knowing anything, which I will for simplicity’s sake), I find it much easier to let go of the of an all-knowing, all-powerful force that controls everything in the world for good. I see the world as a series of random forces whose interactions and oppositions make up the world - and lucky for me, I get to control one of those forces, my own actions. So I try to do my best in the world, and surround myself with other people who are doing there best, since I can’t control anyone’s actions other than my own. And it’s working out pretty good for me so far.

-North

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

Defining Religion: Sociological Perspectives

Religion is a complicated subject that means a great deal to the majority of humanity - something that is easy to forget, living in a largely secular and multicultural society where open discussion of faith is regarded as being taboo as to avoid arguments (along with the topics like sex and politics).  When thinking of the definition of religion, most people probably expect concepts like, say, a belief in a higher power, an established system of governance over a sub-culture that shares in a belief, a promise of reward and punishment for our deeds based on the morality defined by doctrine, the existence of doctrine that includes myths, rituals, legends, folklore, etc. You could probably go on forever trying to find exactly what defines a religion. The problem is that our common notions about religion often leave out some groups and include others that maybe shouldn’t be considered as faiths.  This is one of the most contentious issues in the Sociology of Religion. I’m going to skip over some of the drama that exists in the field and get into the nitty-gritty here. There is no single definition that can authoritatively explain what religion really is, but the many definitions that do exist fall on a spectrum between two types: The Substantive and the Functional. Substantive definitions concern themselves with what a religion contains in its beliefs, rituals, customs, practices, etc. Functional definitions serve to define what a religion does for a person: how does it give meaning to life, how does it define right and wrong, and so on. These are some of the most prominent definitions of religion in the field of sociology that I have summed up a bit.  1. Emile Durkheim’s Definition A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things - that is to say things that are set apart and forbidden - which unite into a single moral community. Religion is Sociological not Psychological

2. Rational Choice Theory Religion can be defined as the expenditure of perceived costs in order to gain supposedly supernatural rewards and avoid supposedly supernatural punishments. These rewards and punishments are split into the immediate (can happen in the foreseeable future) and the compensatory (to happen at an undisclosed time in the future, often in the afterlife).

3. Religion as Misattribution People desire answers to questions and make poor attributions (or misattributions) when attempting to answer these questions - often coming to the conclusion that all good comes from the divine, whereas evil is rooted in the natural world (particularly in people). Religious Misattribution can be defined as the assignment of causation regarding social, medical/physiological, emotional/psychological, physical, or environmental issues to a supernatural realm.

My personal perspective tends to fall a bit more to the functional side - what a religion does, rather than what a religion contains. To me religion is any system that takes philosophical stances regarding ethics and transforms them into systems of morality, in short turning ideas of right and wrong into ideas of good and evil. The beliefs, rituals, customs, and so on are not what defines a religion, but rather are the tools that a religion utilizes to cement its moral perspective.

-Kass

[drunkexmormonsexplain-blog]

What’s an agnostic atheist?

Aren’t agnostic and atheist like two different things?

—

I don’t believe in God. I believe the opposite - that there probably isn’t a higher power who created the universe and micromanages the lives of us mortals here on Earth. In fact, I don’t just believe that there is no God, I think it’s highly probable. I live my daily life as if there is no God, and when I talk to religious individuals, I present and defend the position that God does not exist. This makes me an atheist: I’m more inclined to believe there is no God than that there is one.

Agnosticism is an adjective I use to describe my (non) belief in God. Rationally, I know that there is no way to prove whether or not God exists, I just happen to think it’s likely that our current concept of a traditional religious God is not real. If I were a gnostic atheist, I would claim to know, as a fact, that there is no higher power, and would hopefully have the scientific proof to back up my claim. Since I don’t, and I don’t make any of those claims, I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist.

The terms “gnostic” and “agnostic” can also be used to refer to theistic beliefs! A gnostic theist claims to know that God exists absolutely, whereas an agnostic theist is inclined to believe in God, but doesn’t claim to know of its existence.

So there you go! Instead of thinking of the belief or non-belief in a God as a scale from theist > agnostic > atheist, think of it as a two-dimensional graph, with theism/atheism on one axis and gnosticism/agnosticism on the other. Or don’t! If “agnosticism” is the term that you think best describes your belief system, then keep on using it. Hopefully now you can understand why I chose the term “agnostic atheist” to represent my beliefs.

-North