Give Me that Old Time Religion

I'm going to depart from your expectations like Elder Uchtdorf talking about something other than flying, by NOT beginning this post with a discussion of the Latin word "religio." I know. Try to be strong. I am going to talk about how this is one area in which we already excel so well that we need to be made aware of it from another new angle. We've done this with other "knowledges" that we all take for granted: try to get you as students to see differently the things you know, and think about how it is that you know them. Religion, though, is a special case of this same idea. It informs much more of our world view than whether or not you know how to whistle or whether you have kept a blog before. And it is largely orally taught and learned. Try to think of these questions in regards to that form of the religious knowledge you have; even if you recall scripture, do so as if it is story, told and listened to, rather than as "Holy Writ" to be silently read.

Our specific religion is probably the main reason we are all here--specifically HERE, here, at BYU. Because we could all be at other universities, doing similar things, but not the same thing, that we do here, which is to deliberately teach and deliberately learn, all from the unique perspective of the restored gospel. We know what that means. How would an outsider view it? (Many outsiders? Outsiders with differing levels of tolerance or patience with religion at all; what about a confirmed skeptic/atheist?) Why might it be valuable to try to see that question through to its multiple possible responses? ...And so on to some further questions that might go into your blog posts about Religion (with a capital R). Let's get spooky right off: Where did it come from--chickens and eggs notwithstanding, are you open to either an evolutionary or a dispensationary model in studying the origins of religious behavior? Maybe a dispensationary model for the "Us" people and an evolutionary one for the "Thems"? (If that made you nod without squirming, think harder.)


More spookiness: What makes people who are religious so dangerous (especially to outsiders)? Lest you think I exaggerate by using the word dangerous, remember that people kill and die for ideas far, far more quickly than they kill or die for facts. (Would you die for your testimony of gravity? [Hint here: Galileo almost did.] Can anyone even have a "testimony" of something for which no faith is necessary, but only observation?) So what is it about religious ideas in particular that pushes believers to this kind of devotion? Can you think of other areas of human experience that people get as passionate about? What do they kill or die for--and what do they feel OKAY about killing or dying for, or even proud to do so, that might compare with religious devotion? Love, politics, money, revenge have all driven crimes and wars, but do the instigators of those conflicts feel as justified, as blessed by God or gods for their actions as do those who call themselves (or assign others to call them) religious martyrs; why not?

What does religion do that cannot be done by anything else? (Really? If you suggest an answer to that question, push it, force it past your instinctive response: what can something-that-isn't-religion do that religion normally does? What about the reverse: is there something that is usually done without religion that religion can do better? [again: Really?])We can say that we appreciate the qualities of knowledge that come from sophic as well as mantic sources, but we absolutely must stay aware of the pitfalls of each--and there are pitfalls to each; what are the disadvantages of a religious worldview? When and why and where are those disadvantages most keenly felt? Can they be overcome? Can they be overcome within as well as without the context of religion?

What does religion do to its believers? How are you shaped by yours; how are others shaped by theirs? What does religion do to questions of proper ways of being-in-the-world? How does it shape gender expectations and behavior? How does it shape different classes or castes of people?

How are oral stories and songs and teachings used in various religions? Can a religion exist without the spoken (or sung) word? What are the religious implications of language limits? How have cultures been shaped by the dominant religions of their social backgrounds (I do not say "History" because that is, as Dr. B pointed out, a far more written invention than one that can be transmitted orally)? How have religions been shaped by their contexts? If religions as well as other endeavors have both sophic and mantic elements (and they do!) who gets to determine which bits of any given religion come from an Otherworldly source and which come from common sense or somewhere else?

And finally, some closer personal reflection (don't get lazy with this! Do not give the short-hand Sunday School lesson answers; these need some thought!): How can you talk respectfully about a religion in which you do not believe? How can you talk to someone who disrespects your religion? Can bridges be built, or do we just hunker down and be "grateful that God loves us better than God loves Them"? Does theology even matter? Why?

Some people who have thought and written a lot about religion:

• D. G. Hart (A Students' Guide to Religious Studies)
• Gary Kessler (Studying Religion)
• Carl Jung (Take your pick--but it is better to read secondary sources on him, actually; he's just someone you should know about. Myth is a good start.)
• Mircea Eliade (The Myth of the Eternal Return)
• Joseph Campbell (The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Largely his own take on Jung; he popularized Jung for an entire generation)
• Rosemary Radford Ruether (Goddesses and the Divine Feminine. Very good, far more responsible than popular takes on "goddess" religion like the ones Dan Brown used. [Ick.])
• Hugh Nibley (again. Temple and Cosmos. Best if you've been endowed in the temple)
• Carolyn Walker Bynum (again, a lot of stuff, but most of it Western, Christian, and medieval, because I am a medievalist, and CWB rocks my very socks. Holy Feast Holy Fast is really good.)
• Ronald Grimes (Ritual Criticism)
• Jacob Neusner (Tons of material; he's very good with Jewish studies, obviously, but also check out Religion, Science, and Magic which he helped edit)

...and by the way, it means "to tie back, or tie again." To be bound to something you know to be bigger, and more important, than yourself. (One reason the "spiritual, but not religious" claim lacks power--it ties you only to yourself.)