Reasons you left the LDS church.

[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.

 

[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.