Feb 8, 2022·edited Feb 8, 2022Liked by Cesar Garcia
Good to read your next installment, Cesar! I think sociology of religion could be helpful here. In his book, Dynamics of Faith, theologian Paul Tillich insightfully explains how religious symbols are in a constant state of flux and how religious narratives ("myths" in academic parlance) must be "broken" regularly to retain their motivational force. What he means by broken is to recognize religious myths as such but not to discard them. That is, to keep their place in cult and liturgy, to continue to find inspiration in them and utilize them to galvanize human action, but to also recognize their limitations. He points out that attempts to repress the breaking of the myth and double-down on literalism actually weaken religion rather than strengthening it.
Being a relatively young religion, Mormonism is currently experiencing significant tensions resulting from the fact that earlier assumptions about foundational truth claims, such as Book of Mormon historicity, are no longer tenable in light of greater evidence. While some literalists continue to double-down on the claims, many scholars are revising their approach. On the question of BoM historicity in particular, some subscribe to an "expansionist" theory, claiming portions of the text may still have ancient origins while other parts are clearly interpolations from 19th century culture of Joseph Smith. Others accept the possibility that the book is not at all historical but still find inspiration in its pages and feel it is just as entitled to be called "scripture" as other foundational religious texts.
Far from a death knell for Mormonism, I personally think that such myth breaking is both possible and necessary, and can allow the faith to continue to flourish in the coming decades. Many other religions, including Christianity and Islam, have experienced reinterpretations, schisms and renaissances as religious scholars and laity have grappled with their foundational claims.
Mormons have a strong tradition of obtaining as much education as possible and embracing scientific discovery. "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism," claimed founder Joseph Smith, "is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. ...We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'" If they can stay true to these principles, they will be willing to revise their foundational claims in light of new evidence, continuing to find value in some teachings while modifying or discarding others.
Of course, there's no guarantee Mormons will navigate these tensions successfully, but I think they are very capable of doing so, if they make the right choices. I personally hope that the growing difficulties the LDS Church is currently experiencing with an approach that emphasizes literalism and appeals to authority will cause them to become desperate enough to try something else.
Regardless of whether or not the Church successfully navigates this transition, the question of whether or not Mormonism is most suitable for realizing your vision of this "New Zion across the Sea" is worth pondering carefully. It's also worth considering that it may not be necessary for the whole of society to be motivated by such narratives. A relatively small movement of dedicated, capable individuals can still effectuate change and become a catalyst for more widespread social transitions.
If you're interested in learning more, I've written and spoken at length about these concepts:
Good to read your next installment, Cesar! I think sociology of religion could be helpful here. In his book, Dynamics of Faith, theologian Paul Tillich insightfully explains how religious symbols are in a constant state of flux and how religious narratives ("myths" in academic parlance) must be "broken" regularly to retain their motivational force. What he means by broken is to recognize religious myths as such but not to discard them. That is, to keep their place in cult and liturgy, to continue to find inspiration in them and utilize them to galvanize human action, but to also recognize their limitations. He points out that attempts to repress the breaking of the myth and double-down on literalism actually weaken religion rather than strengthening it.
Being a relatively young religion, Mormonism is currently experiencing significant tensions resulting from the fact that earlier assumptions about foundational truth claims, such as Book of Mormon historicity, are no longer tenable in light of greater evidence. While some literalists continue to double-down on the claims, many scholars are revising their approach. On the question of BoM historicity in particular, some subscribe to an "expansionist" theory, claiming portions of the text may still have ancient origins while other parts are clearly interpolations from 19th century culture of Joseph Smith. Others accept the possibility that the book is not at all historical but still find inspiration in its pages and feel it is just as entitled to be called "scripture" as other foundational religious texts.
Far from a death knell for Mormonism, I personally think that such myth breaking is both possible and necessary, and can allow the faith to continue to flourish in the coming decades. Many other religions, including Christianity and Islam, have experienced reinterpretations, schisms and renaissances as religious scholars and laity have grappled with their foundational claims.
Mormons have a strong tradition of obtaining as much education as possible and embracing scientific discovery. "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism," claimed founder Joseph Smith, "is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. ...We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'" If they can stay true to these principles, they will be willing to revise their foundational claims in light of new evidence, continuing to find value in some teachings while modifying or discarding others.
Of course, there's no guarantee Mormons will navigate these tensions successfully, but I think they are very capable of doing so, if they make the right choices. I personally hope that the growing difficulties the LDS Church is currently experiencing with an approach that emphasizes literalism and appeals to authority will cause them to become desperate enough to try something else.
Regardless of whether or not the Church successfully navigates this transition, the question of whether or not Mormonism is most suitable for realizing your vision of this "New Zion across the Sea" is worth pondering carefully. It's also worth considering that it may not be necessary for the whole of society to be motivated by such narratives. A relatively small movement of dedicated, capable individuals can still effectuate change and become a catalyst for more widespread social transitions.
If you're interested in learning more, I've written and spoken at length about these concepts:
"Demythologizing Mormonism" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1od2Jnwq86SLh8QJfz75h40pyyOvkvS4fKNRUdGkYfzk/edit
Video presentation of the paper linked above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cDhMGkPMQs