Reasons you left the LDS church.

[babe]

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 see a definitional difference on the meaning of "faith" at work here. What I would consider dogma, or a static set of rigid assertions, is sometimes called "faith" by some. The willful act of accepting a canonical view, perhaps standardized in some catechism by some priestly scholars or something comparable. When such a set of assertions contains one error, you would of course be right to reject it. I suspect human beings have never, and probably never will, generate a religious code that is without error. One set of LDS believers, probably a large majority, will hold that although we do not have such an errorless set of beliefs, we do have a kind and loving Father who does lead the LDS people through leaders inspired to our need, and that if we hold with that leadership, we will be led forward towards the day when we will be acceptable sons and daughters of God who can live with Him in eternity, and through eons of continued development, become just as our Father is.

A very few Mormons, like me, will not even attempt to claim that "leadership" is error-free, but will hold that whatever the errors and insufficiencies of leaders past, present or future, God will overrule all in our favor, and will claim us as His children on condition of our faith in Christ, and Christ's atonement for all sin--- which "sin" in my view ncludes sins of omission and all forms of ignorance.

Happily, I with awe and wonder observe even people in other religions being loved and accepted in general by those same principles, and when I see true worshippers of God loving God wholeheartedly and dedicating their lives to the service of others, or in any way lifting their fellow beings by teaching, example, and service, I have "faith" God will bring them as well as anyone into his realms of glory. Such would not preclude one day having opportunity for any of the essential religious rites designated as requirements for eternal progression.

For me, "faith" means something akin to "hope" and "love". It is describing a human capacity for progress, not a set of dogmatic assertions.

 

[Siro]

I see a definitional difference on the meaning of "faith" at work here. What I would consider dogma, or a static set of rigid assertions, is sometimes called "faith" by some. The willful act of accepting a canonical view, perhaps standardized in some catechism by some priestly scholars or something comparable. When such a set of assertions contains one error, you would of course be right to reject it. I suspect human beings have never, and probably never will, generate a religious code that is without error. One set of LDS believers, probably a large majority, will hold that although we do not have such an errorless set of beliefs, we do have a kind and loving Father who does lead the LDS people through leaders inspired to our need, and that if we hold with that leadership, we will be led forward towards the day when we will be acceptable sons and daughters of God who can live with Him in eternity, and through eons of continued development, become just as our Father is.

A very few Mormons, like me, will not even attempt to claim that "leadership" is error-free, but will hold that whatever the errors and insufficiencies of leaders past, present or future, God will overrule all in our favor, and will claim us as His children on condition of our faith in Christ, and Christ's atonement for all sin--- which "sin" in my view ncludes sins of omission and all forms of ignorance.

Happily, I with awe and wonder observe even people in other religions being loved and accepted in general by those same principles, and when I see true worshippers of God loving God wholeheartedly and dedicating their lives to the service of others, or in any way lifting their fellow beings by teaching, example, and service, I have "faith" God will bring them as well as anyone into his realms of glory. Such would not preclude one day having opportunity for any of the essential religious rites designated as requirements for eternal progression.

For me, "faith" means something akin to "hope" and "love". It is describing a human capacity for progress, not a set of dogmatic assertions.

You are reasonable and thoughtful, but I've yet to see an answer to my larger question. Why do you believe? What compels you to accept the assertions of Jesus' savior-hood or your god's existence, when you have no problem subjecting the rest of your worldview to objective analysis.

 

[babe]

You are reasonable and thoughtful, but I've yet to see an answer to my larger question. Why do you believe? What compels you to accept the assertions of Jesus' savior-hood or your god's existence, when you have no problem subjecting the rest of your worldview to objective analysis.

I haven't "accepted the assertions of Jesus' savior-hood or . . . . god's existence" without an attempt to subject it all to objective analysis. But I do realize that if I rely solely on objective analysis or my own intellect, it would be a sort of "faith" in myself in many respects. And I've seen a lot of objective evidence of my own insufficiency. . . . well, even stupidity, some say. . . . and I've had to revise and edit my dearest convictions from time to time. I should be as accommodating to others in similar circumstances, I figure.

Why do I believe in God or Jesus? Without seeing them and subjecting them to critical interrogation? That is like asking why I love my kids, or myself, or anyone. I realize it is not the realm of reason, exactly. I look at "faith" as another component of human intelligence, or capacity. Like others, it can be purposefully exercised, even developed. Like your two legs and arms. . . . Let's say objective analysis/knowledge/information/fact/science is one leg that helps us get along in life. . . . sentiment/love/faith/hope/compassion could be considered the other leg. You can hop around on one if you like, or use both.

I could tell you from experiences or sentiments why I believe, but that really won't answer you until you choose to accept some of these very human talents to be worthy talents in your own set of life-skills. Then whatever you choose to love/believe for your own journey in life, don't let the objective skills go unused either. Like your sense of balance, you will begin to just sense when one skill has been carried too far for the problem/purpose at hand.

And often, it will help to just consider the value of those other folks who are working their way forward somehow even if they don't have all the same answers you're working with.

 

[TroutBum]

Mormon, Muslim, Jew, or Athiest -- I think we can all agree that Siromar is ****ing retarded.

 

[babe]

Mormon, Muslim, Jew, or Athiest -- I think we can all agree that Siromar is ****ing retarded.

Good to see you back again, Trout. We need some comic relief around here. Actually, I'm just having a panic attack seeing anyone take me seriously. Now you might call that retarded, and I doubt I could really make the case that you're wrong, but I was enjoying reading the exchanges here, particularly the ones that were quite unexpected, from our Muslim cohort.

While I have worked with moslem folks and had some friendship-level contacts, and even have a neice who converted to Islam from Mormonism. . . . well, that might not be fair. Her mom and dad were really quite a scandal when their divorce went down, and maybe she was looking for something with reasonably stable prospects. I can see where marrying a millionaire who's obligated to support you on an equal basis with other wives could look extremely stable.

But it is actually informative to me to see how different muslim-derived views can be discussed rationally, well, in terms of comparison with the whole mormon/anti-mormon thing. It does appear that the major elements of discussions about faith and science do translate to other religions.

 

[cowhide]

For what it's worth, you are mischaracterizing LDS beliefs. If I were a betting man I'd be willing to bet that I'm much more of a scientist than you are (I'm a physicist and university professor with a PhD from U.C. Berkeley). And I find the LDS church to be very much compatible with science.

Yet you believe that God only started putting spirits in the bodies of humans four thousand years ago. What happened to all those people prior to four thousand years? How does science explain putting spirits into a body? Did God not love or care about these spiritless people? Was God experimenting on humans? Are these spiritless people in hell? I was in the LDS church for 25 plus years and I never heard this idea of God putting spirits into humans only starting four thousand years ago.

Sorry but science and faith are at odds all the time and the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

 

[colton]

Yet you believe that God only started putting spirits in the bodies of humans four thousand years ago.

Roughly six thousand years ago, actually, I guess. That's just my way of viewing the Adam and Eve story. I do treat all of the dates in the Old Testament with a grain of salt, though, so Adam and Eve (who I believe to have been real people) could easily have lived 10,000 years ago, or perhaps even 20,000 years ago. Nevertheless, I believe that at a particular point in time there was a fundamental gap made between men (children of God) and animals (creations of God).

What happened to all those people prior to four thousand years? How does science explain putting spirits into a body? Did God not love or care about these spiritless people? Was God experimenting on humans? Are these spiritless people in hell?

I'm not following your questions. Or perhaps you didn't follow my description.

I was in the LDS church for 25 plus years and I never heard this idea of God putting spirits into humans only starting four thousand years ago.

You never heard of Adam and Eve?

But just to be clear, this particular view is simply my way of reconciling scripture with evolution. There may well be other ways, and I'm certainly not saying that my view is the gospel truth.

Sorry but science and faith are at odds all the time and the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

"It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, … to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion." (Discourses of Brigham Young, pg 248)

 

[One Brow]

I was in the LDS church for 25 plus years and I never heard this idea of God putting spirits into humans only starting four thousand years ago.

It's a comon view among theistic evolutionists. Many Catholics have it, as well. It has the advantage of not being scientifically detectable, so science can take no opinion on it, as long as you do not ascribe specific behaviors to the possesion of such a spirit/power(s). The trouble only arises when you assume behaviors such as planning, abstraction, etc. are tied to the possession of this spirit/power(s).

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yet you believe that God only started putting spirits in the bodies of humans four thousand years ago. What happened to all those people prior to four thousand years? How does science explain putting spirits into a body? Did God not love or care about these spiritless people? Was God experimenting on humans? Are these spiritless people in hell? I was in the LDS church for 25 plus years and I never heard this idea of God putting spirits into humans only starting four thousand years ago.

Sorry but science and faith are at odds all the time and the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

Does the world's understanding of science know everything about everything yet? Is there a cure for cancer yet? Is there a cure for the flu? (*insert one of a billion scientific questions we don't have answers to yet.) If you don't know everything about science, why would you expect Colton, or anyone else, to know everything about what happened thousands of years ago.

Colton's theory is reasonable, and it's possible he is right and we just don't know or understand everything yet.
Just because in 25 years you never heard it, doesn't mean it's not out there, or that it's not valid.
It's an idea, it's not "Church Doctrine".

 

[Deleted member 848]

Good to see you back again, Trout. We need some comic relief around here. Actually, I'm just having a panic attack seeing anyone take me seriously. Now you might call that retarded, and I doubt I could really make the case that you're wrong, but I was enjoying reading the exchanges here, particularly the ones that were quite unexpected, from our Muslim cohort.

While I have worked with moslem folks and had some friendship-level contacts, and even have a neice who converted to Islam from Mormonism. . . . well, that might not be fair. Her mom and dad were really quite a scandal when their divorce went down, and maybe she was looking for something with reasonably stable prospects. I can see where marrying a millionaire who's obligated to support you on an equal basis with other wives could look extremely stable.

But it is actually informative to me to see how different muslim-derived views can be discussed rationally, well, in terms of comparison with the whole mormon/anti-mormon thing. It does appear that the major elements of discussions about faith and science do translate to other religions.

Well said. Mormonism typically gets a bad rap from where I live, so its nice to see it defended, in turn helping me understand why so many people feel so comfortable with it. I would assume the same could be said about Islam; I just hope I've offered a decent perspective of it, and you guys aren't just leaving the thread thinking of the Black Swordsman as the quintessential muslim.

 

[Siro]

Mormon, Muslim, Jew, or Athiest -- I think we can all agree that Siromar is ****ing retarded.

Edit#2: I typed the response in anger and it made me feel on the same level as that person. Feel free to continue looking up my posts to harass me. I've never had anyone on ignore before. Let's see how that works.

 

[babe]

It's a comon view among theistic evolutionists. Many Catholics have it, as well. It has the advantage of not being scientifically detectable, so science can take no opinion on it, as long as you do not ascribe specific behaviors to the possesion of such a spirit/power(s). The trouble only arises when you assume behaviors such as planning, abstraction, etc. are tied to the possession of this spirit/power(s).

An insightful, excellent point. Anyone who is perfectly dogmatic about the Bible's history of mankind gets rolled up into the 4000 BC year idea along with the 7 "day" creation week. Anyone who believes in an absolute omnipotent God who can literally create the whole universe with a single verbal command shouldn't need to think about the details of the process, and many don't.

Although Mormons have made an effort in the past century to present their beliefs in less stark contrasts with other Christians, the fact remains that Mormons don't necessarily believe either the 7 day "creation" or the 4000 BC
date for Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Or that the whole universe began with Genesis 1:1.

While the compound inconsistencies which logically arise with accepting these notions can be discussed with eloquence and logic, I rather think it falls short of good sense to apply logic to legends or cultural traditions which reflect more on man's imperfect comprehension of God and Universe. It's like applying the strictest, latest scientific enquiry to Alice in Wonderland, or nursury rhymes like how "the cow jumped over the moon." Seriously, some of you guys ought to be as mad at your moms for telling you there is a Santa Claus as you're mad at religions for simplistic versions of how the universe began. Filipinos, for example, tell the story of "Malakas at Maganda" and another of a half-horse, half man named Tik Balong similar in some respects to Greek mythology, and there is even one legend held by a mystic sect about how great historical people like Jose Rizal and Magellan appear to believers who go deep enough into a cave in a particular volcanic mountain. But nobody really cares enough to subject these beliefs to line-by-line scientific discussion, and there are few filipinos strung out on deep-seated angst about how nursury teachers lied to them in telling the stories.

Mormons, however, elude the necessity of actually believing that no living things could have spirits prior to God's breathing the spirit into Adam, if they wish, by remembering that Joseph Smith once speculated that all living things, even trees, have their own orders of "spirit", and that God Himself has a body like ours, and a spirit, and lived a life like ours in some prior world, and that living things were brought here from other worlds, during the so-called "creation" days of the Bible. Speculations such as this, set in the context of concepts like continuing "revelation" and the Biblical assertion that God teaches man "line upon line, precept upon precept" in an effort to close the stated gap between God's thoughts and man's thoughts . . . . ." For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's thoughts higher than man's thoughts.". . . . . the Mormons, if they just don't fall into the same little logical traps, should readily understand that our present levels of understanding, even scriptural accounts of creation, beg for improvement.

The faith does not depend critically upon the scripture written by Moses, or anyone else. The only point where the faith stands or falls is on the one point of whether God actually exists, and can be approached by any human effort to understand, and most importantly upon the "reality" of a God who responds in any way to our search. Or who in some way has acted in such a way we could discover something worthy of belief.

It will always be an open question that begs for human liberty, and should lead us to see the need to respect others.

 

[cowhide]

Does the world's understanding of science know everything about everything yet? Is there a cure for cancer yet? Is there a cure for the flu? (*insert one of a billion scientific questions we don't have answers to yet.) If you don't know everything about science, why would you expect Colton, or anyone else, to know everything about what happened thousands of years ago.

Colton's theory is reasonable, and it's possible he is right and we just don't know or understand everything yet.
Just because in 25 years you never heard it, doesn't mean it's not out there, or that it's not valid.
It's an idea, it's not "Church Doctrine".

I wasn't claiming to know all the questions? I never said science had all the answer. Besides the fact that most religious people claim they have the truth while in reality they have no evidence but simple belief. As far as the spiritless body suggestion, I didn't say it was true or not, I've simply never heard of it. I believe it is illogical, not plausible and simply weird. There are plenty of ways to make educated guesses what happened millions of years ago and even thousands of years. Your claim that we don't know what happened years ago, yet millions of people use these books (Bible, Koran etc) to judge, condemn and as a tool to justify how things should run today. How do we know these things to be true? Some people chose to belief and others choose to use science to better understand the world we live in. To each his own. I do not profess to know all the answers like some religious people do. I find Conan's theory to be highly likely but heck what do I know? Maybe God is a mad scientist and Earth is his/her laboratory.

To answer why I proposed the questions in my earlier post to CONAN, was because he was promoting his credentials of being a scientist and how he believe that science and the LDS church teachings are compatible. I disagree and at no time did I insinuate that science has all the answers. Unfortunately, instead of answering my question you felt the need to protect your BFF. I am not surprised that you ignored the point of my post. When insecure people feel they are right they tend to either attack a person or simply name calling.

Sorry but I don't think it is reasonable at all. What actual evidence do you have that it is right? No more than I have it isn't. I admit I don't know all the answers. So when you're done making up your own theories about what happened a long time ago. Maybe you can take a second to realize how hypocritical you are being. So if you believe in this theory and have come to the understanding of how to defend the fact that there is a huge hole in the story of the creation of the Earth/Universe, then why not share it with the General Authorities. Perhaps because they would laugh at you? Now I know all "doctrine" doesn't make sense but if this is the probable explanation than why not? Has God cured cancer? Or the common flu? So I guess neither is that effective. LOL.

 

[cowhide]

It's a comon view among theistic evolutionists. Many Catholics have it, as well. It has the advantage of not being scientifically detectable, so science can take no opinion on it, as long as you do not ascribe specific behaviors to the possesion of such a spirit/power(s). The trouble only arises when you assume behaviors such as planning, abstraction, etc. are tied to the possession of this spirit/power(s).

Thanks for answering my question. I still think it is crazy and I also do not think it explains Conan's theory that God started doing it with Adam and Eve and did not provide this "gift of spirit" to people being born prior to Adam and Eve.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I wasn't claiming to know all the questions? I never said science had all the answer. Besides the fact that most religious people claim they have the truth while in reality they have no evidence but simple belief. As far as the spiritless body suggestion, I didn't say it was true or not, I've simply never heard of it. I believe it is illogical, not plausible and simply weird. There are plenty of ways to make educated guesses what happened millions of years ago and even thousands of years. Your claim that we don't know what happened years ago, yet millions of people use these books (Bible, Koran etc) to judge, condemn and as a tool to justify how things should run today. How do we know these things to be true? Some people chose to belief and others choose to use science to better understand the world we live in. To each his own. I do not profess to know all the answers like some religious people do. I find Conan's theory to be highly likely but heck what do I know? Maybe God is a mad scientist and Earth is his/her laboratory.

To answer why I proposed the questions in my earlier post to CONAN, was because he was promoting his credentials of being a scientist and how he believe that science and the LDS church teachings are compatible. I disagree and at no time did I insinuate that science has all the answers. Unfortunately, instead of answering my question you felt the need to protect your BFF. I am not surprised that you ignored the point of my post. When insecure people feel they are right they tend to either attack a person or simply name calling.

Sorry but I don't think it is reasonable at all. What actual evidence do you have that it is right? No more than I have it isn't. I admit I don't know all the answers. So when you're done making up your own theories about what happened a long time ago. Maybe you can take a second to realize how hypocritical you are being. So if you believe in this theory and have come to the understanding of how to defend the fact that there is a huge hole in the story of the creation of the Earth/Universe, then why not share it with the General Authorities. Perhaps because they would laugh at you? Now I know all "doctrine" doesn't make sense but if this is the probable explanation than why not? Has God cured cancer? Or the common flu? So I guess neither is that effective. LOL.

I got to the Conan part, and couldn't take in the rest of the post. I'm sure it was good, but I have a hard time taking someone seriously that confuses Colton with Conan. Give me a bit, and I will try again.

 

[Bronco70]

Mormon, Muslim, Jew, or Athiest -- I think we can all agree that Siromar is ****ing retarded.

I disagree, and I think this is the type of interjection that makes reasonable discussion difficult.

 

[TroutBum]

I disagree, and I think this is the type of interjection that makes reasonable discussion difficult.

You're probably right.

That being said, there is no way that you can construe anything he's posting as "resonable".

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yet you believe that God only started putting spirits in the bodies of humans four thousand years ago. What happened to all those people prior to four thousand years? How does science explain putting spirits into a body? Did God not love or care about these spiritless people? Was God experimenting on humans? Are these spiritless people in hell? I was in the LDS church for 25 plus years and I never heard this idea of God putting spirits into humans only starting four thousand years ago.

Sorry but science and faith are at odds all the time and the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

The part in bold is mainly what inspired my response, even though you did not direct it at me.

Does the world's understanding of science know everything about everything yet? Is there a cure for cancer yet? Is there a cure for the flu? (*insert one of a billion scientific questions we don't have answers to yet.) If you don't know everything about science, why would you expect Colton, or anyone else, to know everything about what happened thousands of years ago.

Colton's theory is reasonable, and it's possible he is right and we just don't know or understand everything yet.
Just because in 25 years you never heard it, doesn't mean it's not out there, or that it's not valid.
It's an idea, it's not "Church Doctrine".

I wasn't claiming to know all the questions? I never said science had all the answer. Besides the fact that most religious people claim they have the truth while in reality they have no evidence but simple belief. As far as the spiritless body suggestion, I didn't say it was true or not, I've simply never heard of it. I believe it is illogical, not plausible and simply weird. There are plenty of ways to make educated guesses what happened millions of years ago and even thousands of years. Your claim that we don't know what happened years ago, yet millions of people use these books (Bible, Koran etc) to judge, condemn and as a tool to justify how things should run today. How do we know these things to be true? Some people chose to belief and others choose to use science to better understand the world we live in. To each his own. I do not profess to know all the answers like some religious people do. I find Conan's theory to be highly likely but heck what do I know? Maybe God is a mad scientist and Earth is his/her laboratory.

To answer why I proposed the questions in my earlier post to CONAN, was because he was promoting his credentials of being a scientist and how he believe that science and the LDS church teachings are compatible. I disagree and at no time did I insinuate that science has all the answers. Unfortunately, instead of answering my question you felt the need to protect your BFF. I am not surprised that you ignored the point of my post. When insecure people feel they are right they tend to either attack a person or simply name calling.

Sorry but I don't think it is reasonable at all. What actual evidence do you have that it is right? No more than I have it isn't. I admit I don't know all the answers. So when you're done making up your own theories about what happened a long time ago. Maybe you can take a second to realize how hypocritical you are being. So if you believe in this theory and have come to the understanding of how to defend the fact that there is a huge hole in the story of the creation of the Earth/Universe, then why not share it with the General Authorities. Perhaps because they would laugh at you? Now I know all "doctrine" doesn't make sense but if this is the probable explanation than why not? Has God cured cancer? Or the common flu? So I guess neither is that effective. LOL.

Where to start.... hmmmm.
You did say it was not true in your prior post when you stated

the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

The implication is that the LDS Church is wrong, and that Faith has blinded members to the fact that they are wrong. You stated that after the paragraph about the topic. Am I correct to infer your followup statement had to do with the topic of your post as it appeared?

I believe I correctly addressed the point of your post, which was again the last line

the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

Duly noted, and tagged for irony.

I'm trying to follow you, but you are making this difficult.

the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

the fact that most religious people claim they have the truth while in reality they have no evidence but simple belief.

I didn't say it was true or not

Some people chose to belief and others choose to use science to better understand the world we live in. To each his own.

I do not profess to know all the answers like some religious people do.

I disagree and at no time did I insinuate that science has all the answers.

I admit I don't know all the answers.

Maybe you can take a second to realize how hypocritical you are being.

If you admit you don't know all of the answers, how can you be so quick to say a person of faith does not have something you don't?
You don't claim to know the answers, but you claim to know who does not have the answers.

Did you really want to talk about the people before God started putting spirits into bodies, or did you want to talk about how religion, for sure the LDS faith, is blind?

By the way, I read again my post to you and failed to find the part where I called you names or attacked you. If you could find it for me and explain it I would appreciate it so I don't do it again.

 

[LogGrad98]

That is the most colorful post without a pic I have ever seen. +12 when I spread some rep around.

 

[Scat]

That is the most colorful post without a pic I have ever seen. +12 when I spread some rep around.

Funny, I was going to neg rep Spazz for posting such an ugly response...