Episode 147: American Grace with David Campbell

As far as secular giving . . .

 I heard Nicholas Kristof (a liberal) point out that liberal givers tend to give to thing that service themselves just as much as conservative givers give to churches.  For example, liberal givers are more likely to give to ballets, theaters and museums which ultimately serve their own needs. While conservative givers are indeed providing for their own churches they are more likely to give to causes outside their own sphere than liberals.

Comment and question (not in that order)

Question: When Dr Campbell was outlining how the researchers had defined ‘fundamentalist’ Christians, one of the questions asked was whether the respondent believed literally in the Bible. He noted that Mormons don’t score particularly high on this question – ie they do not believe overwhelmingly in a literal interpretation of an historic Bible*. Did the researchers ask those same Mormons whether they believe in a literal, historic Book of Mormon? Because it seems that Mormonism, by including a set of scriptures that are unique to their religion, add a bit of nuance to the concept of a fundamentalist. I don’t have a social science background so I don’t know whether that question would have been useful or not, but if a belief in a literal interpretation of scripture is a defining characteristic of a fundamentalist, surely it doesn’t matter what that scripture is – wouldn’t you ask a Muslim about the Koran, for example?

*Note: not going into how one can not believe in a literal, historic Bible when some pretty basic tenets of one’s faith depend on just such an interpretation – ie literal Garden of Eden, literal Adam and Eve, literal Tower of Babel etc.

Comment: While I like the optimist in Heather’s question about Mormons perhaps developing a greater acceptance of ‘fringe’ Mormons (post, ex-, NOM etc), and mentions that perhaps those people can come to be viewed as something other than ‘outer’, it ignores the fact that once you have been ‘inner’ – part of that tight, closely regarded circle, leaving puts you into a third category: not faithful, not never-Mormon, but the once-was. Because of the strong missionary drive for Mormons they are trained to see non-Mormons with tolerance, affection and interest as ‘those who will be some day’. In other words, in this world or the next when they get the chance to hear the truth they will too become One of Us. Fringe Mormons however serve as the terrifying example of what happens if you fall away. They are, by definition, lost sheep, wandering in the wilderness, sinning, thinking un-clean thoughts (un-correlated thoughts), and terribly contagious.

I do hope tolerance will increase as the number of vocal fringe Mormons increases (the ex-Mo Aunt Annie perhaps), but until the rhetoric about the fragility of testimony and the need to avoid ‘anti’ thought, discussion and literature is removed I don’t see it happening on a large, culture-wide scale.

Comment and question (not in that order)

Question: When Dr Campbell was outlining how the researchers had defined ‘fundamentalist’ Christians, one of the questions asked was whether the respondent believed literally in the Bible. He noted that Mormons don’t score particularly high on this question – ie they do not believe overwhelmingly in a literal interpretation of an historic Bible*. Did the researchers ask those same Mormons whether they believe in a literal, historic Book of Mormon? Because it seems that Mormonism, by including a set of scriptures that are unique to their religion, add a bit of nuance to the concept of a fundamentalist. I don’t have a social science background so I don’t know whether that question would have been useful or not, but if a belief in a literal interpretation of scripture is a defining characteristic of a fundamentalist, surely it doesn’t matter what that scripture is – wouldn’t you ask a Muslim about the Koran, for example?

*Note: not going into how one can not believe in a literal, historic Bible when some pretty basic tenets of one’s faith depend on just such an interpretation – ie literal Garden of Eden, literal Adam and Eve, literal Tower of Babel etc.

Comment: While I like the optimist in Heather’s question about Mormons perhaps developing a greater acceptance of ‘fringe’ Mormons (post, ex-, NOM etc), and mentions that perhaps those people can come to be viewed as something other than ‘outer’, it ignores the fact that once you have been ‘inner’ – part of that tight, closely regarded circle, leaving puts you into a third category: not faithful, not never-Mormon, but the once-was. Because of the strong missionary drive for Mormons they are trained to see non-Mormons with tolerance, affection and interest as ‘those who will be some day’. In other words, in this world or the next when they get the chance to hear the truth they will too become One of Us. Fringe Mormons however serve as the terrifying example of what happens if you fall away. They are, by definition, lost sheep, wandering in the wilderness, sinning, thinking un-clean thoughts (un-correlated thoughts), and terribly contagious.

I do hope tolerance will increase as the number of vocal fringe Mormons increases (the ex-Mo Aunt Annie perhaps), but until the rhetoric about the fragility of testimony and the need to avoid ‘anti’ thought, discussion and literature is removed I don’t see it happening on a large, culture-wide scale.

Comment and question (not in that order)

Question: When Dr Campbell was outlining how the researchers had defined ‘fundamentalist’ Christians, one of the questions asked was whether the respondent believed literally in the Bible. He noted that Mormons don’t score particularly high on this question – ie they do not believe overwhelmingly in a literal interpretation of an historic Bible*. Did the researchers ask those same Mormons whether they believe in a literal, historic Book of Mormon? Because it seems that Mormonism, by including a set of scriptures that are unique to their religion, add a bit of nuance to the concept of a fundamentalist. I don’t have a social science background so I don’t know whether that question would have been useful or not, but if a belief in a literal interpretation of scripture is a defining characteristic of a fundamentalist, surely it doesn’t matter what that scripture is – wouldn’t you ask a Muslim about the Koran, for example?

*Note: not going into how one can not believe in a literal, historic Bible when some pretty basic tenets of one’s faith depend on just such an interpretation – ie literal Garden of Eden, literal Adam and Eve, literal Tower of Babel etc.

Comment: While I like the optimist in Heather’s question about Mormons perhaps developing a greater acceptance of ‘fringe’ Mormons (post, ex-, NOM etc), and mentions that perhaps those people can come to be viewed as something other than ‘outer’, it ignores the fact that once you have been ‘inner’ – part of that tight, closely regarded circle, leaving puts you into a third category: not faithful, not never-Mormon, but the once-was. Because of the strong missionary drive for Mormons they are trained to see non-Mormons with tolerance, affection and interest as ‘those who will be some day’. In other words, in this world or the next when they get the chance to hear the truth they will too become One of Us. Fringe Mormons however serve as the terrifying example of what happens if you fall away. They are, by definition, lost sheep, wandering in the wilderness, sinning, thinking un-clean thoughts (un-correlated thoughts), and terribly contagious.

I do hope tolerance will increase as the number of vocal fringe Mormons increases (the ex-Mo Aunt Annie perhaps), but until the rhetoric about the fragility of testimony and the need to avoid ‘anti’ thought, discussion and literature is removed I don’t see it happening on a large, culture-wide scale.

American Grace doesn’t focus solely on Mormonism.  Mormonism is actually only a small part.  There were several other very interesting findings.  Some of them include:

-Despite what conservative religious leaders are saying, American is NOT secularizing in the same was as Europe.  The rates of secularization are very low and it will take a very very long time to reach the levels Europe sees now.

-There are two major issues driving people in/out of religion right now: abortion and homosexuality.

-Young people are more accepting of homosexuality and less comfortable with abortion than the previous generation (Caveat on the abortion issue: while young people are uncomfortable with abortion on a personal level, they don’t support legislation against abortion.)

-People are more likely to pick their religion based upon their politics, rather than the other way around.  (I personally find this interesting as I watch conservatives here in Utah who backed Prop 8 freak out about the church’s support of rather liberal / progressive illegal immigration legislation.  During Prop 8 they claimed we must follow what our church leaders tell us.  But do they say the same thing about backing immigration legislation?  HAHA-no.  I guess “follow the prophet” isn’t as vital as they thought.)

-Religious people are viewed as more trustworthy than secular people.  (No surprise here… demonizing atheists is one of America’s favorite pastimes.)  Along the same lines, religious people claim that secular people are selfish.

I just listened to this and came to the comment section to tell you how great your interviewing was but it seems like I was beat to the punch, so I will instead tell you that you did a bad job. The worst interview imaginable. I joke! You did an excellent job interviewing and you clearly did your research. I hope you are able to conduct future interviews for Mormon Expressions.