Reasons you left the LDS church.

[The Black Swordsman]

I'm not going to deny that there are supernatural elements to the Quran. For example the Jinn, or spirits made of smokeless fire, moses and the red sea, stuff like this is in the Quran. What the Quran doesn't have is descriptions of the world or science that is simply not believed to be true. (Another scientific miracle I forgot to mention for example is it says moon has borrowed or reflected light and the Sun is a lamp or has its own light).

Like I said 1/6th of the Koran talks about the world and science. None of it has been deemed false. If the Quran said that Native Americans came from Israel or that black people are descended from cursed people I would have not converted (I'm not saying this is true for LDS necessarily).

 

[bat]

I left the LDS church because sacrament was over.

 

[Siro]

I'm not going to deny that there are supernatural elements to the Quran. For example the Jinn, or spirits made of smokeless fire, moses and the red sea, stuff like this is in the Quran. What the Quran doesn't have is descriptions of the world or science that is simply not believed to be true. (Another scientific miracle I forgot to mention for example is it says moon has borrowed or reflected light and the Sun is a lamp or has its own light).

Like I said 1/6th of the Koran talks about the world and science. None of it has been deemed false. If the Quran said that Native Americans came from Israel or that black people are descended from cursed people I would have not converted (I'm not saying this is true for LDS necessarily).

Like how Dhul Qarnayn traveled to the end of the earth, to the place where the sun sets, and watched it set into a boiling see? Or is that also just the supernatural will of god? Perhaps I'm misreading it? Oh wait, it must be metaphorical. I find it hard to keep track of the different categories of apologetics.

My point is, your scientific inaccuracies are meaningless. Maybe god deleted the DNA evidence to test our faith? Who knows! Anything can be turned into anything if you really wanted to believe.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Like how Dhul Qarnayn traveled to the end of the earth, to the place where the sun sets, and watched it set into a boiling see? Or is that also just the supernatural will of god? Perhaps I'm misreading it? Oh wait, it must be metaphorical. I find it hard to keep track of the different categories of apologetics.

My point is, your scientific inaccuracies are meaningless. Maybe god deleted the DNA evidence to test our faith? Who knows! Anything can be turned into anything if you really wanted to believe.

It specifically says that it appeared Dhul Qarnayn to set in boiling sea (some translations say murky water) it doesn't say it goes in Murky water. Also, it says he traveled until sunset not until he reached the place of sunset.

It simply says he reached murky water at sunset (as in time).

 

[babe]

Does that embrace of all truths extend to theories that directly contradict the typical definition of creation? Evolution for an example? What percentage of Mormons in your estimate accepts evolution?

A poll of LDS folks would yield statistically different results from such a poll of most other Christian sects.

Among Mormons there will be some who don't believe in evolution in any sense. None of these would be put on trial for their church standing. There would be maybe about half who incorporate evolutionary time frames and processes into their best guess about how living things were created by God. Again, there is no doctrinal requirement to accept this view. In many more Bible-text oriented "mainstream" Christian Churches people who think like this would be looked at as insecure in their faith in an almighty sovereign God capable of creating everything as it is and as it appears and as it functions. No holds barred. Among Mormons it is often a belief that God uses natural laws and abides by them. . . . . not so much emphasis on the ultimate origin of things, which exposes to Mormons to criticism that they believe in a different sort of God. . .

A large portionof Mormons would simply say it doesn't matter how it happened, they personally and directly belief in God and "know" God loves them quite unconditionally, and they love Him quite unconditionally too.

The "typical idea of creation" went out the Mormon window with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, who taught that man and life was brought here from other planets some time after this earth was created some 4.5 Billion years ago. Well, in the current age the LDS Church does not stress this view, and tries not to aggravate the perceptions or prejudices of other "Christians", settling more for the idea that what is important is our belief in Jesus and His Gospel. Centering on living lives that reflect personally on the moral teachings if not intellectual views.

Maybe a few less religiously- centered Mormons actually believe in "Evolution". Probably some very inactive or merely socially-oriented Mormons are pretty weak even on believing in God at all. It's pretty much a "Church of the Open Door" where you actually can "come as you are" provided you are not obnoxiously strident in trying to impose your views on others.

Church leaders sometimes hold forth fairly eloquently on their views and may be more scriptural or doctrinal in their pronouncements, but these leaders change in the process of time, and some authorities get well-ignored by most LDS in succeeding generations. Once in a while, even the scriptural texts will be updated when the unanimously perceived need arises. There are members who sometimes speak about in regard to the pros and cons of these changes. . . . There is a claim that if there is any contradiction between authoritative present teachings, and scriptures, the scriptures prevail. . . . while emphasizing the need to support current leaders and emphasis as a practical matter.

I think someone like Henry E. Eyring would have encouraged people to think and ask questions. Well, actually I don't have to say "I think". I know. I worked for him for twelve years. One of his sons, "Ted" was my bishop at the University of Utah, and I don't think I ever had anyone in "authority" who promoted inquiry with the level of acceptance and encouragement he did. Another pretty good scientist, like his father.

 

[Bronco70]

Does that embrace of all truths extend to theories that directly contradict the typical definition of creation? Evolution for an example? What percentage of Mormons in your estimate accepts evolution?

I can't speak to the percentages, but I'm a mormon that accepts evolution. It's fairly difficult to rationally argue that it doesn't exist and hasn't played a part in the development of life on earth.

I would assert that people who will accept only "the typical definition of creation", as you call it, are those who have not done any real study on the subject, and are so entrenched in traditional dogma that they are unwilling to do so.

Personally, I don't see a conflict between science and scripture. If one considers that scripture was written by men who had little if any real scientific knowledge to base their writings on. They were given information tailored to their ability to understand. So you get "days" and the like used to describe creation.

There are a lot of other mormons that think like me. I don't know if it's many, or most, or some... But there is no reason to assume that God would work with a different set of scientific principles and laws than we do. The big difference is that we barely understand the basics. For example, there are still thousands (probably millions) of things just about human physiology that we don't really understand.

Looks like I'm blathering, so I'll wrap this up. You get what I'm driving at though, right?

 

[Siro]

It specifically says that it appeared Dhul Qarnayn to set in boiling sea (some translations say murky water) it doesn't say it goes in Murky water. Also, it says he traveled until sunset not until he reached the place of sunset.

It simply says he reached murky water at sunset (as in time).

18:85 And he followed a road
18:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: "O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness."
18:89 Then he followed a road
18:90 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.

The meaning is clear.

 

[Siro]

A poll of LDS folks would yield statistically different results from such a poll of most other Christian sects.

Among Mormons there will be some who don't believe in evolution in any sense. None of these would be put on trial for their church standing. There would be maybe about half who incorporate evolutionary time frames and processes into their best guess about how living things were created by God. Again, there is no doctrinal requirement to accept this view. In many more Bible-text oriented "mainstream" Christian Churches people who think like this would be looked at as insecure in their faith in an almighty sovereign God capable of creating everything as it is and as it appears and as it functions. No holds barred. Among Mormons it is often a belief that God uses natural laws and abides by them. . . . . not so much emphasis on the ultimate origin of things, which exposes to Mormons to criticism that they believe in a different sort of God. . .

A large portionof Mormons would simply say it doesn't matter how it happened, they personally and directly belief in God and "know" God loves them quite unconditionally, and they love Him quite unconditionally too.

The "typical idea of creation" went out the Mormon window with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, who taught that man and life was brought here from other planets some time after this earth was created some 4.5 Billion years ago. Well, in the current age the LDS Church does not stress this view, and tries not to aggravate the perceptions or prejudices of other "Christians", settling more for the idea that what is important is our belief in Jesus and His Gospel. Centering on living lives that reflect personally on the moral teachings if not intellectual views.

Maybe a few less religiously- centered Mormons actually believe in "Evolution". Probably some very inactive or merely socially-oriented Mormons are pretty weak even on believing in God at all. It's pretty much a "Church of the Open Door" where you actually can "come as you are" provided you are not obnoxiously strident in trying to impose your views on others.

Church leaders sometimes hold forth fairly eloquently on their views and may be more scriptural or doctrinal in their pronouncements, but these leaders change in the process of time, and some authorities get well-ignored by most LDS in succeeding generations. Once in a while, even the scriptural texts will be updated when the unanimously perceived need arises. There are members who sometimes speak about in regard to the pros and cons of these changes. . . . There is a claim that if there is any contradiction between authoritative present teachings, and scriptures, the scriptures prevail. . . . while emphasizing the need to support current leaders and emphasis as a practical matter.

I think someone like Henry E. Eyring would have encouraged people to think and ask questions. Well, actually I don't have to say "I think". I know. I worked for him for twelve years. One of his sons, "Ted" was my bishop at the University of Utah, and I don't think I ever had anyone in "authority" who promoted inquiry with the level of acceptance and encouragement he did. Another pretty good scientist, like his father.

That's too long winded a way to say "not many at all". Fitting creatures into a timeline like you're solving a jigsaw puzzle has nothing to do with evolution at all. And it demonstrates what I'm saying. What is the point of "asking questions", if you already know the answers? Simply to provide information for a new ideological paint job? Just trying to imagine such an outlook gives me a headache.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

That is an incorrect translation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8R2rVgD2ok

 

[babe]

I am part of a Legume phylogeny Lab so believe me I know about the statistics of DNA.

The thing is statistics is based on chance, however once you have this chance and extend it over the three billion base pairs that humans have in their genome... You can almost certainly take the statistics as being accurate. I know that the science community out there does, I guess it is not good enough for others... The professor makes a living by analysis such statistics. It's good enough evidence for people to make good livings studying it.

Its not just the overwhelming DNA evidence, its the overwhelming DNA evidence compounded with the fact that they share lingual similarities, and only Native Americans and East Asians have shovel-type incisors.

I don't see how you can make an argument saying that the Scientific data out there is not supporting the complete opposite of the Book of Mormon is saying... I'm not saying that the scientific evidence is not necessarily 100% proof. I'm just saying you cannot completely dismiss it because it doesn't agree with what you believe.

You apparently feel pretty confident there are not any possiblities but what you insist are relevant. In this case you are following the trend in supposing the general view of man's origins go back some 1.2 million years in Africa, maybe supported by mRNA studies which at best indicate there were only seven women living 120,000 years ago whose mRNA is still being propagated, and that because of the probabilities of breeding is likely to narrow with the elimination in the next ten thousand years of the mRNA of at least two of those.

A survey of chemical reactions would reveal that there is a necessity to estimate the probability of catalysis, or some favorable natural process that can operate on better-than-calculated Thermodynamics. A lot of reactions just wouldn't happen. Oh, like photosynthesis, for example. In the whole biological realm, the evidence of something operating to improve the chances for life/survival could hardly be ignored unless you just want to. There is actually an active discussion of some of these in evolutionary science.

Hopefully, those considerations can be controlled for in your laboratory research projects, or maybe under your circumstances they will not be relevant. . . . hopefully. And yet in the case of pathological bacteria, it has taken less than 70 years to create antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could review the generalities of the emerging evidence that life was here in the Americas beginning in more than one place, including possibly a third in Brazil, well ahead of the "land bridge" and maybe even understand the rates of "genetic extinction" and the observed phenonmena of a good gene coming into a vast population and quickly becoming a dominant one in the statistical distribution.

Ten human generations every 300 years, meaning a thousand progenitors somewhere back there in time just 300 years ago. A billion just 1000 years ago. Think about it. You want to assume a steady state lasting over ten thousand years and call it "science".

 

[The Black Swordsman]

I haven't memorized what verse belongs where in the Book of Mormons but can anyone say where it says about the Native American thing. I thought it said they traveled from Israel to here and became the Native Americans. I didn't think it said become part of the Native Americans. If it says "part of" the Native Americans then you might have a case.

 

[Archie Moses]

I haven't memorized what verse belongs where in the Book of Mormons but can anyone say where it says about the Native American thing. I thought it said they traveled from Israel to here and became the Native Americans.

Nope. Doesn't say that, dude. What anti-mormon website do you get your info from if you don't mind me asking?

 

[babe]

I haven't memorized what verse belongs where in the Book of Mormons but can anyone say where it says about the Native American thing. I thought it said they traveled from Israel to here and became the Native Americans. I didn't think it said become part of the Native Americans. If it says "part of" the Native Americans then you might have a case.

You can disbelieve the Book of Mormon easily enough without working the genetics issue.

I go out and hike along the shoreline of Lake Bonneville, and could look up some studies on the people who lived along that shoreline. I've even been in some of their cave/homes. I don't quarrel with the science that pretty obviously shows that was ten thousand years ago. At least.

What one writer supposed in making statements sixteen hundred years ago, perhaps relying on some previous equally ill-informed writer wrote 3000 years ago is no obstacle to me. I think you've heard/said this somewhere above. . . . people can/will believe and write, often very piously, what they believe/want to believe. I can't change that. Or rather, I wouldn't if I could. A lot of people learn something sometimes and realize the old idea was not good enough. I think religion needs to accomodate people somewhat as they are, and I hope "faith" can move them along to better things when the need is seen. Even scientists operate on a principle of faith that we can learn and improve what we believe, for good reason, when that reason is seen. I realize my use of the term "faith" in that process might be different from someone who takes the stand that the Bible, or Quran, is somehow God-breathed/inspired/dictated "Perfection" somehow that doesn't need improvement. But consider this. All those scriptures are written in human language and interpreted in the context of human understanding, whatever the reader has. Maybe a lot of us don't understand very well, but even the best/smartest/wisest among us are still needing to learn a lot more. . . . and our understanding of those scriptures will change as our information/comprehension changes. So I don't hold with the "Infallibe Word of God" arguments pushed by very fallible human beings.

But I still like the quest of seeking better understanding. . . .

I consider with some due reflection that the Book of Mormon might even have been written by a seminary graduate of one of the United States' first colleges, maybe based on some backwoods storyteller who invented a lot of tales, and refurbished it all with early 19th-century Campbellite/Baptist preaching. I know it was a common belief on the American frontier of that age that the Indians were Jews/some of the Lost Tribes of Israel. A lot of Bible-reading backwoodsment saw similarities in the Indians with what they read about people in the Bible. And those "savages" were not really so backward. The United States Constitution reflects the organization of the Six Nations of the northeast, who sent representatives to a common council to regulate their allegiances/territories/practices. And they built homes in some areas, and raised crops like corn. And there were thousands of old Indian mounds scattered in the northeast and midwest woods that suggested huge cities in antiquity. A lot of that view has been displaced by the Oxford/British arrogance that imputed barbarian status to all other nations in our education now.

But I can say "I don't know" regarding unproven theories and go right on believing in Jesus all I want. What errors any have brought into the faith in ignorance, or whatever is not true, is not an issue with me and God. The only eternal faith incorporates all truth, and will eventually have to shed all error.

The reasons I don't just grab the naysayers' views and accept them is fundamentally rooted in a relationship with God. A relationship I see sometimes in people from other religions than mine.

 

[Surely]

The attempt to repudiate the Book of Mormon story with at least equally ignorant "science" is just useless and pointless. Internally, from the Book of Mormon, there are several migrations mentioned, at least three from Eurasia to America and at least one back across the Pacific, or into the Pacific Islands at least. One of my ancestors was perhaps the first ordained LDS missionary to the Pacific, set apart to preach while working his livelihood as a sailor for the British merchant fleet. He recorded in his journals a vivid dream, some might call it a "revelation" but it was never claimed as a revelation by the LDS Church. In his dream he was informed that the Japanese were a Nephite branch. I myself went to the Philippines as a missionary, and my experience more or less satisfied me that they were a Book of Mormon "Lamanite" remnant.

I went to the Sapporo Japan mission (the northern most island in Japan, Hokkaido). Hokkaido is also where most of the remaining Japanese indians (Ainu) live. There is no doubt they came from a different background then the Japanese. Interesting stuff.

 

[default]

I would think one of the bigger reasons people would leave the LDS church would be due to having issues with scriptures like Doctrine and Covenants 132's parts on becoming Gods (violates the 1st commandment?) and plural marriage (even most current Mormons disagree with, but it is still in their scriptures). Some Mormons try to explain both of these items away while many others are ashamed of these brief passages even though they still consider themselves Mormons since they believe pretty much everything else. Its a tough call for many people that I know.

https://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

 

[colton]

I am part of a Legume phylogeny Lab so believe me I know about the statistics of DNA.

The thing is statistics is based on chance, however once you have this chance and extend it over the three billion base pairs that humans have in their genome... You can almost certainly take the statistics as being accurate. I know that the science community out there does, I guess it is not good enough for others... The professor makes a living by analysis such statistics. It's good enough evidence for people to make good livings studying it.

Its not just the overwhelming DNA evidence, its the overwhelming DNA evidence compounded with the fact that they share lingual similarities, and only Native Americans and East Asians have shovel-type incisors.

I don't see how you can make an argument saying that the Scientific data out there is not supporting the complete opposite of the Book of Mormon is saying... I'm not saying that the scientific evidence is not necessarily 100% proof. I'm just saying you cannot completely dismiss it because it doesn't agree with what you believe.

How many Israelites does the Book of Mormon describe as migrating to the Americas? How many other people would have already been there? Without knowing what your starting point is, how could you even begin to suppose what DNA should/should not display?

The answer to the first question is something like 20-30 people. I have no idea what the answer to the second question is, but would expect it to be something like tens or hundreds of thousands. Given those initial conditions, what do you think today's DNA will show?

 

[colton]

Does that embrace of all truths extend to theories that directly contradict the typical definition of creation? Evolution for an example? What percentage of Mormons in your estimate accepts evolution?

That's a good question, but poorly worded. I would say ALL scientifically literate Mormons accept that evolution happens. I don't know how one could even begin to argue against it. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

But what you are probably trying to ask, is about accepting that *mankind* was created via evolution. Just from my own experience I would guess that a lot of LDS (one third?) probably believe that God created man using evolutionary processes. Another large group (one third?) probably believe that all life on earth was created just a few thousand years ago (~4000 BC?). And the rest either believe something in between or else don't care enough to speculate. My own view is closest to the first category, although I do believe there was a particular moment in time (4000 BC-ish?) when God started placing His spirit children into the bodies of the first humans.

 

[Siro]

I think you spend much of your time with like-minded individuals, Colton. I would be SHOCKED to find out that a third of Mormons believe humans evolved from other species. I would be shocked even if a third accepted that all species apart from humans went through the process. If we're talking about less established theories, like the various ideas on abiogenesis, I wonder if even 5% would accept such a proposal.

That's the problem with religion. If everyone was like you or Babe, then it would be pretty pedantic of me to object to faith. It would indeed be a personal perspective on ontological questions that does not directly related to observed phenomena. But I don't think that's the case. I think faith makes acceptance of evidence a game of mental roulette. You randomly try to dismiss theories that do not match your preconceptions, unless your knowledge of the overwhelming evidence is too heavy to simply ignore.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I would think one of the bigger reasons people would leave the LDS church would be due to having issues with scriptures like Doctrine and Covenants 132's parts on becoming Gods (violates the 1st commandment?) and plural marriage (even most current Mormons disagree with, but it is still in their scriptures). Some Mormons try to explain both of these items away while many others are ashamed of these brief passages even though they still consider themselves Mormons since they believe pretty much everything else. Its a tough call for many people that I know.

https://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

As to point one, it's no different than saying you can grow up to be like your dad if you do the things he asks you to do.
If I believe God is the father of our spirits, and created us in His image here, it's not much of a stretch to think that children can grow up to be like their Father. I hope my kids grow up to be like me, only better than me if possible.

About violating the "first" commandment. I have a few issues with this, first of all it is not the "first" commandment, it is the first of the Ten Commandments given to Moses. Adam and Eve were commanded to do things before Moses was even born. What does "have no other gods before me" have to do with believing I can grow up to be like my Father? Now, if I was worshiping my car, my favorite tv show, my ipad, or if I put anything in my life before God, then I am putting "other gods" before The God.

I'm not even going to the plural marriage topic. Create a new thread for that one.

Life is full of tough calls. If you take time to research, study, ponder, and figure out the tough calls in life, they can be figured out eventually.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

That's a good question, but poorly worded. I would say ALL scientifically literate Mormons accept that evolution happens. I don't know how one could even begin to argue against it. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

But what you are probably trying to ask, is about accepting that *mankind* was created via evolution. Just from my own experience I would guess that a lot of LDS (one third?) probably believe that God created man using evolutionary processes. Another large group (one third?) probably believe that all life on earth was created just a few thousand years ago (~4000 BC?). And the rest either believe something in between or else don't care enough to speculate. My own view is closest to the first category, although I do believe there was a particular moment in time (4000 BC-ish?) when God started placing His spirit children into the bodies of the first humans.

I think you spend much of your time with like-minded individuals, Colton. I would be SHOCKED to find out that a third of Mormons believe humans evolved from other species. I would be shocked even if a third accepted that all species apart from humans went through the process. If we're talking about less established theories, like the various ideas on abiogenesis, I wonder if even 5% would accept such a proposal.

That's the problem with religion. If everyone was like you or Babe, then it would be pretty pedantic of me to object to faith. It would indeed be a personal perspective on ontological questions that does not directly related to observed phenomena. But I don't think that's the case. I think faith makes acceptance of evidence a game of mental roulette. You randomly try to dismiss theories that do not match your preconceptions, unless your knowledge of the overwhelming evidence is too heavy to simply ignore.

I don't have any issues with Colton's statement, and am very much in line with his way of thinking.

I disagree that faith forces people to accept, or not accept evidence of anything. I think it can help with understanding what is going on in this world. Faith does not, and should not close the eyes of the believer to the world, or discoveries, or science, or anything out there. Faith can and should help a believer take the time to understand evidences, discoveries, and theories. Faith can give you an anchor, and help point the way to understanding this amazing world we live in. If you use faith as a blinder, that is on the individual, and not on faith in general.