Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The discussion has been helpful so far. It’s clear to me that if no religion is really the one true religion, then a person’s standing in the afterlife would not be affected by which religion they were a part of. I next wonder about God and the afterlife- if there is a God and an afterlife, then why would God create a mortal world for us to live on, and allow humans to be created through evolution to be naturally disposed towards religious belief, but not reveal a one true religion, and instead allow us to choose between a large number of religions that all claim to be the one true religion but are in fact all both partially right and partially wrong? Why would God create people to come up with a huge number of creation myths involving mystical beings with supernatural powers, all of which are ultimately wrong? Why would God create people to come up with all kinds of strict and mutually exclusive methods and rituals (i.e. ordinances) for getting to heaven, all of which turn out to be unnecessary? God could have saved us a whole lot of work- not to mention some bloody religious wars- by just giving us some simple information about reality and telling us that no religion is the only way. It’s possible that there is an afterlife, but no God. The Star Wars universe and (you’ll have to forgive me if I’m wrong, because I have seen the movies but haven’t read the books) the Harry Potter universe are examples of universes where there is an afterlife, but no God. In the Star Wars universe, no one seems to believe that God answers prayers, but there is a clear “netherworld of the Force” where the spirits of the dead go. It’s the same with Harry Potter- no one prays or expects God to intervene in human (or wizard) affairs, but there is a clear afterlife. This scenario seems to be the most far-fetched and unlikely, and a naturalistic world where humans really aren’t anything more than stuff seems more likely than this scenario.
Bruce, I’ve thought about that and heard speculation about that. I’ve even heard one story where a guy got a patriarchal blessing that said that he was afflicted with Down Syndrome because he was the one who physically cast Satan out of heaven during the pre-mortal war. I would guess that the story is an urban legend, but even if there was an individual who had such a blessing, I don’t at this point believe that a war in heaven existed. And the majority of speculation about the pre-mortal life that I’ve heard has been on the side of more pre-mortal valiance translating into a better birth situation. I have a hard time buying into the idea that God would give more valiant pre-mortal spirits tougher mortal situations because that would be punishing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior. I would have a tough time trusting a God who was so unpredictable.
Thanks, I caught the movie reference 🙂 I suppose that’s a good point- since the person didn’t actually die, I guess we wouldn’t expect people to be sorted in such a way. Christopher Hitchens used the same argument to dismiss NDE- since the person didn’t actually die, then NDEs don’t tell us anything about the afterlife. I guess a “Mormon NDE” would involve seeing all your dead relatives wearing dark business suits with white shirts and conservative ties or pastel-colored dresses, hearing one of your dead relatives quote Bruce R. McConkie, going to a correlation meeting in a Mormon-looking chapel, hearing primary songs in the background, seeing people’s temple garment markings showing through their thin white shirts, and being told that you need to meet with your Bishop for a PPI so he could consult the handbook of instructions to decide whether or not you would go back to your body. That’s what I would expect for a Mormon afterlife- everything would be very Mormon, even down the the casserole🙂 But yes, the above Mormon afterlife scenario is one that a TBM might maintain a belief in. Since I am no longer a TBM, I wouldn’t expect an NDE or an afterlife to be like that.
Ray, thanks for replying. It seems that my afterlife thread is much more popular. It’s true that a pre-mortal life where the details are unknown gives people an opportunity to make unsubstantiated and untestable assertions about their pre-mortal superiority to gain various advantages in this life; this is something akin to the “divine right of kings.” It would seem that the doctrine of the pre-mortal life has evolved a great deal. I confess that I have become a little annoyed with the doctrine recently; when I was a kid in Sunday School, some good speculation went on about the pre-mortal life, but since the Church does not seem interested in any more pre-mortal speculation, I find that the doctrine has limited value because it doesn’t tell us anything at all about why things are the way they are now, which is part of what I thought the doctrine was for. I once imagined a complex pre-mortal life and a whole huge set of pre-mortal factors (including individual behavior) that created the diversity of human predicaments we see in front of us. But that has fallen apart for me, and I’d like to know if there is value in believing in a pre-mortal life when we can’t make any specific statements about the pre-mortal lives and situations of any individual. I agree that pre-mortal valiance is not a good explanation for the wide range of situations that people are born into. But if pre-mortal valiance is not the explanation, then another explanation is needed, at least in my opinion. I don’t expect anyone to answer that question.
Ray, you also mentioned “pure Mormonism.” I’ve seen a number of people who seem to believe in pure Mormonism, which seems to be the belief that the Church as restored by Joseph Smith was indeed the one true church, and the Church has apostatized from this. I’ve seen the “pure Mormonism” blogspot, and Damon Smith indicated some kind of belief in pure Mormonism at the end of his interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. Of course, if there has been an apostasy from pure Mormonism, there would need to be a Restoration and perhaps another prophet of a Restoration. But this seems like it would need another thread for discussion.
M&G, thanks for sharing your experience. I’m tempted to say that I would like to have an NDE so that I could have such a strong belief in the afterlife, but I don’t think I want to be in a position where I am that close do death. I have also found it strange that no NDE I have read about fits the Mormon model of the afterlife. On my mission I taught people that there is a partial judgement immediately after death and that people go to either spirit prison or spirit paradise, but no NDE account that I am aware of has reported this happening. I imagine you’ve read all of the NDE literature and the potential neurological explanations, but I’m sure that none of the biological explanations can adequately explain the powerful reality of your experience. I find meaning in both belief and non-belief in an afterlife. Belief in an afterlife gives me the assurance that I will see my loved ones again and that I will be able to continue learning and progressing and that my entire existence has meaning, but has the downside of giving the impression that I can make up for failing to make the most of this life in the next life. I find it also cheapens human life somewhat by maintaining that we will be going to a better place soon and that human life is on a lower echelon than the next life. It also means that we don’t need to do much to improve the world for other people because we’re all going to a much better place where all wrongs will be made right. Non-belief in an afterlife has the advantage of motivating me to make the most of each moment and of all my relationships, but bestows an ultimate nihilism and meaninglessness to my existence. Without an afterlife, we aren’t anything more than just stuff, and I really am only a pile of chemicals. Some people maintain that life still has meaning even if there is no afterlife. I can see that a person can find purpose and meaning in reducing the amount of suffering and increasing the amount of joy in the universe. But if there is no divine architect and no afterlife, the universe will ultimately be unable to support life as it continues to its demise- the “big freeze” (or the big rip of the big crunch, depending on which cosmological model you prefer.) And then there will be no more joy or sorrow in the universe.
Whatever I choose ideologically, I have to find a way to live with meaning and purpose, because nihilism is too empty for me.
I assume that some of you will disagree with some of my fundamental assumptions here, and that’s fine. I’m still sorting things out.
Yeah, the traditional protestant view doesn’t do it for me either, where I would sit on a cloud and strum my harp and eat as much junk food as I wanted and never get fat. One of my favorite teachings of Mormonism is that we can become gods, so it has been disappointing to see the Church distance itself from that teaching recently. If we don’t become gods, then I’m not really sure what Mormonism has to say about the afterlife, other than the opportunity to live with God and family. An eternity of Sunday school and sacrament meetings would be hell for me, that’s for sure. Thanks, I appreciate the responses. It appears that the people who believe in an afterlife do so because they want to believe and there is no conclusive evidence that no afterlife exits. I confess that I want to believe. It’s really terrifying to think that I will never think anything again after the death of my brain. Quote:Guitar Basics taught by Jimi Hendrix
Communications 101 taught by Abraham Lincoln
Physics team taught by Issac Newton and Albert Einstein (although I have heard that Newton was a dreary lecturer)
This would be AWESOME!!
Quote:there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a spiritual backup mechanism to transfer or recover all that data once the physical structures are damaged
This is the biggest obstacle to belief in an afterlife for me. If memories were really stored in a person’s spirit, then someone with Alzheimer’s disease could still remember everything clearly because their spirit could “override” the malfunctioning brain. But we don’t observe this- in all cases that I have heard of involving memory, emotion, and cognitive processing, a person’s spirit is not able to compensate for a damaged brain. That isn’t proof that there is no spirit, but it is evidence that no such spirit exists. It is my apocalyptic prediction that neuroscience may present more challenges to religious fundamentalism than evolution ever did.
M&G, I would also like to hear about your NDE.
I’ve often wondered if it is good to believe in an afterlife because an afterlife is
worth believing in.I wonder- is life more meaningful with a belief in an afterlife or without it? Quote:But one thing confuses me. What about those that get married very late? Or never get married at all even though they put forth there best effort to do so. Do we really expect a person to live thier entire life without err umm relief?
I’m a little older than most in the college scene and I’ve never been married. I’ve saved myself for marriage to this point because I’ve been hoping for a woman who has done the same and I guess I don’t know what I’ve been missing, which could possibly be a case for me continuing in that path. I’ve put forth as great an effort to find someone as any Mormon ever has, but some people are just created more attractive than others.
This issue is part of what initiated my crisis of faith. Why didn’t God create me to be as attractive as some other guys? Why is it that women don’t care about my particular set of gifts and talents (which are actually quite good: I’ve worked at NASA, among other things, and I consider myself to be reasonably good-looking), but instead chase bad boys on motorcycles? Why do women obsess over men who are tall, funny, dangerous, and charismatic, etc. and pass up men who are intelligent, creative and stable? The way that romantic attraction actually works (especially for women) is very different from the way that Church culture teaches that it works. Whatever it is that Mormon women want, I don’t have it, and no answer about why God made it that way makes sense to me at this point.
I struggle with this. Why does God create people to be unattractive (or gay, or have any other problem?) Who would choose to be unattractive in the pre-mortal life? Why would God create someone to be unattractive or gay, essentially giving them a choice between a life of celibacy and a life of sin? And what kind of God would punish someone for lack of pre-mortal valiance by making them unattractive?
If you would have asked me as a TBM if it was OK for someone who would probably never be married to grant themselves some leniency on the law of chastity, I would have said no. But now I see the value of considering it.
I’ve always wanted to be able to use the priesthood the way that Luke Skywalker uses The Force or the way that Harry Potter uses magic: I want to be able to work some supernatural miracle in the world on my command. But it doesn’t work that way. rebeccad, is your concern about whether or not the priesthood represents a real power?
Quote:It might not be a reason to lose faith at all. Instead it could just be one of those “Ahhh, so that’s how that works” moments.
I struggle with this, because it begs the question, “What is real?” If spiritual promptings are really given by our brains, and there is no literal Holy Ghost, then how am I to say that there is a literal afterlife? If I’m having trouble finding good evidence to believe that the afterlife the Celestial Kingdom actually exist, then how does figuring out how things actually work not destroy faith?
Roy, I want to say that it wouldn’t bother me. If the Church isn’t “True” and has no power to increase my standing in the afterlife, and especially if there is no God and no afterlife, then it wouldn’t matter what was sold at the mall. At that point it wouldn’t matter if the Church openly ran a brothel in the basement of the Salt Lake Temple. Your logic is good. The idea of the mall selling forbidden substances bugs me because I’m still trying to find reasons why the Church is what it claims to be, because at this point the only good reason I can think of to stay in the Church is that the Church might be what it claims to be. The truth about me is that, even though I’ve been very active in the Church, I don’t particularly like the Church and I’ve been unhappy in it for awhile, but I’ve stayed because of the hope that it might be “True” with a capital “T.” But it doesn’t make any sense for me to stay in an organization that I don’t like and don’t believe in. In a way, I guess I was hoping that my original post would garner some responses that would offer compelling reasons why it’s OK for the mall to sell forbidden substances, and thus show me that I was wrong to object and I needn’t be concerned. But no compelling reasons (at least to my mind) have been offered, just as no compelling reasons for polyandry have been offered. If I do decide to become inactive in the Church, the City Creek Mall wouldn’t be my problem anymore. But I would still object to it on ethical grounds: an organization that has such a strong hold on the minds of millions ought to be consistent in its teachings and practices. I would still consider it inconsistent, if not immoral, for an organization to offer such confusing messages to its trusting and devout believers. But from a nihilistic point of view, if human consciousness does in fact end with the death of the brain, then it really doesn’t matter.
As a single guy who is deciding whether to stay or go, the chastity issue is big for me. I’ve been through about 20,000 chastity talks in Sunday School and seminary, and they’re always incredibly awkward, because the speaker is very firm about how bad breaking the law of chastity is and how important it is to avoid breaking the law of chastity, but is hopelessly ambiguous about what specific acts are sins.
It’s interesting (and refreshing) to see people on this site talking about how some specific acts outlined in the FTSOY pamphlet- passionate kissing, “petting,” and masturbation- are not sins in themselves, but precursors to potential sins. This is quite different from the chastity videos that used to be shown to me, where Spencer W. Kimball would talk about the grievous sins of necking and petting and how evil they were. I always thought that if I took some girl on a date and I “felt her up” I’d have to go confess to my bishop and I wouldn’t be able to take the sacrament. But the fact that they’re not violations of the law of chastity makes sense to my innate moral compass: I just can’t find a reason why these things are innately wrong, and I guess that SWK couldn’t either, which is why he had to dogmatically say, “They’re wrong because God said so.”
It’s interesting to see opinions on both sides. Quote:Polygamy was revealed to the powerful and connected and the leaders have always operated by a different set of standards than the rank and file.
History shows that holding the leadership to a different standard than the rank-and-file is the norm. Leadership has much more moral freedom than the rank-and-file members, whose job it is to do what they are told. One study showed that people who felt they were in a position of power felt less guilty about lying, even though the power was completely fake. Another study showed that people who felt they were in a position of power were more likely to allow themselves to bend the rules, but at the same time they were hard on rule-benders who they perceived as being lower-status then them. That’s just how humans work.
Heck, people even hold God to a completely different set of moral standards- people make excuses for God’s actions (or lack of action) that they would be embarrassed to make for a human parent.
So I’m curious- for those who think that it’s OK for alcohol and tea to be sold at the City Creek Center, here’s my next question: If an LDS person buys and drinks alcohol and tea from the City Creek Center, are they still worthy to go to the temple?
I’m glad to have elicited such a rich discussion, and I still tend to feel the same as I did in my original post. Roy makes a good point by saying that the Church is highly selective about the kinds of evils it tolerates: it’s OK to sell pornography to someone, but it’s wrong for women to wear more than one earring in each ear. I find that such tolerance of evil is usually in line with conservative political ideology. The reason I find the Church’s hypocrisy so outrageous in this situation is that that the Church is so firm with its people (especially youth and college-age people) about what kind of behavior is unacceptable. In seminary, it was better to lose all your friends and live a life of social isolation than to have a single sip of alcohol. I remember watching a video in seminary about a kid who was a recent convert and refused to take an excellent job that required him to work on Sunday, and his faithfulness in refusing to take a job that required Sunday work was portrayed as the epitome of valiance.
It also seems that the Church is shooting itself in the foot by selling products that it claims are spiritually damaging to the very people it is trying to administer salvation to.
I’ve wondered for a long time why it’s wrong to drink alcohol and view pornography, but it’s OK to sell alcohol and pornography to someone else (Marriott Hotels was one case in point.) I’ve wondered why it’s wrong to work on Sunday, but it’s OK to own a business that is open on Sunday. I’ve wondered why it’s wrong to gamble, but it’s OK to be a casino executive or stockholder and to encourage gambling through marketing and advertising. I’ve wondered why the Church won’t accept tithing money made from gambling, but it will accept tithing money made by casino executives and stockholders whose income comes from money that people have gambled away; whether or not the Church will accept tithing on money made from gambling depends on which side of the slot machine you’re on. And if we really believe our message, why would we be selling these things to people? Don’t we have a solemn obligation to save their souls rather than administer sin to them?
If the Church was kinda loosey-goosey about whether or not drinking alcohol and tea were wrong, and how many earrings a woman can wear, and about what I can’t do with a woman I’m not married to, then I’d be more open to the Church’s sale of products that it spiritually condemns. But since the Church is so firm and black-and-white about how many earrings a woman can wear, and what I can and can’t drink, and what I can and can’t do with a woman I’m not married to, then I see no justification for the Church’s sale of products that it spiritually condemns.
For me, at this point, the question is, “Is the Church what it claims to be?” If it isn’t, then all questions have been answered for me and the confusion is over. But if it is, then the confusion and questions continue. I suppose that most of us are on this site because we’ve decided that the Church isn’t exactly what it claims to be. A part of me still wants to hang on to the Church’s fundamental claims, largely because, as a singe guy in college, I see little reason to stay if the Church isn’t what it claims to be. And if there is a One True Church, I don’t see it doing business the way that the Church does.
