How religions change their mind

[rug]

20 May 2013 Last updated at 22:22 ET
By William Kremer
BBC World Service

Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their mind?

In 1889, Wilford Woodruff became the fourth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - more commonly known as the Mormon Church.

As president, he was seen as a living prophet, someone who could receive wisdom and advice from Jesus Christ. And he was certainly in need of advice - his church was in crisis.

For 40 years, Mormons had been at loggerheads with the US Congress over the issue of polygamy, which was encouraged among male believers. The government said it was illegal, and held that religious conviction was no defence.

Wilford Woodruff in 1889 Woodruff in 1889 - he had seven wives across his life, and 33 children
Woodruff and others lived a precarious life, moving around in an attempt to dodge marshals with arrest warrants for bigamy. In 1890, the government brought things to a head by moving to confiscate all of the church's assets

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412

[SharonAnn]

1. Umm, money and power? Just guessing.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. Utah couldn't join the Union unless it outlawed polygamy.

It was a Supreme Court case in 1890.

[hrmjustin]

3. It is a very interesting question.

Our values change from age to age and I like to think are values are getting better day by day. As we leave the dark ages we get rid of the old rubbish and superstitions of the past and embrace religion that speaks to us.

Yes some people may say this is picking and choosing but that is a part of my faith. As an Anglican/Episcopalian we have the three legged stool of faith-Scripture, tradition, and human reason. I decide what seems realistic to me in my faith and it works for me.

[skepticscott]

5. As long as you acknowledge

that religion is entirely something that people invent to comfort themselves and has no rational basis in a real "god", then you've got your head around it.

[hrmjustin]

6. I don't believe God is invented. I believe he is real. I just think many of our relugions are laden

with rubbish from the dark ages.

[dimbear]

4. Ordinarily by force majeure. My favorite example: the Babylonian captivity.

The Judaism which returned from Babylon resembled very little the Judaism that went there originally.

Or so the moderns think.

[goldent]

7. I like how Pope Benedict puts it and how he so clearly contrasts science and ethics

First of all, we must acknowledge that incremental progress is possible only in the material sphere. Here, amid our growing knowledge of the structure of matter and in the light of ever more advanced inventions, we clearly see continuous progress towards an ever greater mastery of nature. Yet in the field of ethical awareness and moral decision-making, there is no similar possibility of accumulation for the simple reason that man's freedom is always new and he must always make his decisions anew. These decisions can never simply be made for us in advance by others—if that were the case, we would no longer be free. Freedom presupposes that in fundamental decisions, every person and every generation is a new beginning. Naturally, new generations can build on the knowledge and experience of those who went before, and they can draw upon the moral treasury of the whole of humanity. But they can also reject it, because it can never be self-evident in the same way as material inventions.

Of course sometimes science changes its mind also, his point is still valid.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "sometimes science changes its mind"

Ah of course because revealed wisdom and a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge are equivalent.

Proving theories wrong is a primary focus of the scientific method.

[goldent]

9. Yep, Pope Benedict was a wee little bit off about science...

implying that in science you are bound by theories developed in the past. But to be fair, that is most often the case, and nearly always the case in maths.

And this perhaps pedantic point doesn't take away from his argument about the profound difference in ethics and morals -- that each generation (and really each person) has to determine them on their own -- they can be guided by the past but are not bound by it.