[wordsleuth23]

In saying that I believe Joseph wrote the BOM, I’m also saying I don’t find it to be an enigma. Initially, I did; why? Because my whole life I was told how uneducated Joseph was; how impossible it would have been for him to write the BOM; etc, etc. My natural mindset towards the issue is that Joseph wasn’t smart enough to do it on his own. Careful study shows otherwise; The Book of the Hebrews–written before the BOM–is similar, and there is good reason to believe Joseph was aware of its theories. There is a tremendous amount of borrowing from the Bible. There is incorporation of local theory about Indians, and stuff Joseph thought of himself. Ultimately, this doesn’t mean the Church isn’t “true”, but it certainly casts doubt upon it. Minus some FARMS gymnastics, nothing about the BOM has been proved, but plenty of it has been disproved. How can I believe it’s true, and by true I mean real/actual.

[wordsleuth23]

Old-Timer wrote:

wordsleuth, the FACT that we really don’t have any idea is what makes the hardcore denials of all but one option so tiring to me. There is NO “logical” answer to this particular question, so it is the ultimate example of living by faith – no matter what option one chooses, theistic or atheistic.

There may be no “logical” answer, but some answers are more rational/logical than others. If we accept the 5 senses at face value, then what we can “prove” scientific answers are the most logical, anything beyond that becomes a matter of faith. Is it more logical to think that the Christian God started the Big Bang or that the Big Bang happened on it’s own? Scientifically, the latter is more “logical”; that doesn’t make it better.

There are plenty of instances where “faith” in religion has caused unnecessary suffering and harm. It is important that we apply some level of rationality to our beliefs; people that want to create/believe in their own “realities” can do so, but when those beliefs cause them to push their ideas–laws, etc–on others, then it isn’t okay. While we may not know all of the FACTS, we know a lot, thanks to science. I don’t know of rational belief systems causing harm, but I do know of irrational beliefs causing harm. You’re right Ray, ultimately, we can’t prove whether God exists, or whether God has a God, but we can prove that the Big Bang happened. I don’t know of any harm that comes from splitting hairs about whether there is one God, or multiple Gods, but being irrational can cause harm–that is my main point. Most of the hardcore denials are found in the Church, not out of it, when it comes to our origins–and that is tiring.

[wordsleuth23]

jcl wrote:

It is entirely the business of government to ensure the survival of its citizens and to do so marriage must be clearly defined for the benefit of society. If the government endorses homosexual marriage the population will begin to contract and eventually weaken and either cease to exist or be taken over by a more powerful society with the proper people resources.

We–the people–are the government. It is our job to do what we can to survive as a species. Does allowing gay marriage create a risk for our species? It’s difficult to argue that it does. Whether gay people can get married or not, they still generally don’t add to the population. They may procreate through unorthodox means, but in general, married or not, gay couples don’t create kids. I know a few gay people quite well, and as far as I–or they–can tell, they’ve always been attracted to the same sex. Does that mean they were born gay? Who knows, but it seems likely that most gay people are biologically predisposed to find the same sex attractive. Neuroscience studies are showing that gay men respond to men the way females do, at various levels of attraction. How much of a gay man’s orientation is driven by how he was raised? Is there a gay gene? If so, are there certain things that activate this gene, either in the womb, or throughout life? As science continues to advance, lots of these questions will get answered. A good book about the history of homosexuality, and its relation to Mormonism, is written by D. Michael Quinn “Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A MORMON EXAMPLE”.

There aren’t a lot of convincing arguments against gay marriage. I personally believe–and I feel like science is and will continue to back me up–that over the next 10-20 years, we will realize sexual orientation is primarily biological. We will realize that most gay people are born “gay” and that denying them the right to marry becomes a civil rights issue if this is the case. If sexual orientation is biological, like skin or eye color, choosing favor one orientation over another is wrong. Opposition to gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, is driven by outdated religious thought about sex. I’m married to a woman; I’m as heterosexual as it gets, but I don’t feel like allowing same-sex marriage does anything to damage or endanger my marriage. We shouldn’t make laws for an entire society that are driven primarily by archaic notions of right and wrong. In the 60’s, interracial marriage was illegal in a lot of states, and frowned upon by the Church. That seems like a bigoted viewpoint now–it was–and that’s how opposition to same-sex marriage will look down the road.

[wordsleuth23]

Whether we want to say God had a creator, or that God is the beginning, we’re merely speculating about things we can’t prove. The entire concept of how life began is impossible to really wrap my mind around. If it was God, or the Big Bang, or both, how anything existed at all to begin with is still a concept I can’t grasp. The idea that God has a creator creates an infinite regress–who created God, who created God, who created God…? The idea that there is only one supreme creator is less of a contradiction, in my mind.

[wordsleuth23]

President Benson made his quote 21 years ago. Over the last 21 years, the Church has quietly accepted changes advocated by FARMS–the limited geography theory, intermingled lamanites (DNA issues). They have given tacit support, and this alone challenges the Book of Mormon, to me. Statements made by Prophets and Apostles for the last 160 years or so have been “wrong”. Why can’t FARMS find any real, legitimate, evidence to support the BOM? Why are Church academics having to jump through hoops to get things to work? The obvious answer is that the book was written by Joseph Smith–a variety of plagiarism, imagination, and local theories. It is rather, one of the–if not the–biggest creators of doubt about the Church and Joseph.

[wordsleuth23]

Heber13 wrote:

swimordie wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

What is it about nature that draws us spiritually? Any ideas?

Great question! For me, it’s the opposite of egoism, you just have the sense of humility and simpleness, a very small part of something very, very big. Also, for modern man, it feels quite primeval, like the first man emerging from the cave, creating meaning for him/herself. Mmmmm, earthy.

Sorry, wordsleuth…I didn’t mean to take away from your intro. I’ll start this discussion on a new topic under general discussion and let this thread get back to you and your intro.

No worries Heber13, I like your question. I think that we are drawn to nature because for most of our existence, we were very intimately involved in nature. It’s an evolutionary thing to me.

[wordsleuth23]

swimordie wrote:

Thanks for the reply. I hope to find myself where you are at, at some point. I want to go to Church and possibly benefit; I want to go to Church and not be driven crazy. Until my dad showed this website–2 days ago–I had stopped being consumed by Mormonism for the most part. I have been consumed by a drive for knowledge, reading everything related to religion–philosophy, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology–that I can get my hands on, but I had stopped reading anything directly related to Mormonism. My frustrations did dampen some when I stopped studying so much, but they flare up when a particularly bad lesson is given, or comments are made that deplore science/knowledge. I admire your ability to change; finding a way to cope with church is something I hope to gain from this website. It’s too bad that we can’t all be in the same ward; I think Church would be a lot more fun that way.

[wordsleuth23]

swimordie wrote:

If faith is so important, why do we need our faith to be “promoted”? Why do we need to be “full” of faith? Why do religious (christian) scholars spend so much time trying to “prove” the bible (or FARMS trying to “prove” the BoM)? Is this cognitive dissonance? It feels like it to me. Is the point of our lives to eventually become so sure of “truth” that we no longer need faith (calling and election)?

Of course the mission of FARMS is to dispel cognitive dissonance. I’ve always found it ironic that when science discovers something that isn’t good for religion, it’s discarded and the need for faith is mentioned. Imagine if a scientific discovery basically proved a key aspect of Christianity; the talk of faith would recede to the background. The emphasis on faith is a way to keep people in the Church. If people place faith first on their list, no amount of scientific evidence or uncovered history matters. Faith is simply a survival mechanism; it allows the Church to deal with all of the contrary evidence.

[wordsleuth23]

swimordie wrote:

Your argument of “need the church to be real” sounds like the opposite of what you hear in church, that the church is “true”. What does “true” even mean? What does “real” mean? That they are who they say they are? Are any of us exactly who we say we are? (of course, here at staylds.com we are 😆 )

To me, real would mean literal, i.e., that when I die, there are 3 degrees of heaven, and I will go to one of them; that I will have an eternal family; that the Priesthood works; that is what I mean by real. If the Church is real, then what good is it? You’re right, we–human animals–are drawn to religion, but the answer to why doesn’t seem terribly complex. For eons, we had no way of explaining our existence; now, we have have science to answer most questions. Obviously, there are certain existential questions that science can’t answer, but it has certainly filled the knowledge gap considerably. For me, be raised in the Church, the literal truth/realness was what made it special, and what made it help. If I know/believe that the concept of prayer and the priesthood are man made, what good does that do me in a time a real need? If there isn’t an actual God ready to supernaturally intervene, what good do these forms of supernatural supplication do me? Ignorance is bliss; that is how religion makes people happy. This world is unbelievable messed up, and believing a better one awaits us can increase happiness; believing we will really see our loved ones again is what makes the believe in eternity a happy one. When these beliefs become metaphorical, what good are they to a former believer? I feel like I’m tainted because I believed in literal truth for so long; the benefits of religion are no longer available to me. I don’t believe or advocate the stance of new-atheists, i.e., I don’t believe religion will ever be eradicated from humanity, and I don’t believe it should be. The reason I feel that way is because I know that when one believes God is real, it can help them deal with turmoil. Once that belief in reality is gone, what good is religion to me? Other than cultural associations, socialization, and moving help, what good is the Church to me if I don’t believe it is “real”? Swimwordie, how do you gain from your belief in a man-made, metaphorical religion? I assume you once thought of it as real/true? I would love some insight from you or anyone else reading this. I go to church with my wife and kids to support them, and to keep my wife happy, but I get nothing out of it but heart burn. Listening to lessons in Gospel Doctrine about the evils of secular learning nearly cause aneurysms, or hearing people rip Korihor for questioning things, and extolling the virtues of blind faith. How do I learn to cope/benefit from the Church?

[wordsleuth23]

Rix,

I enjoyed your response. The challenge I find myself facing–and I’m sure many of you feel the same way–is what to do with the knowledge that much of what I believed to be true, isn’t in a literal sense. How do I reconcile so much and still believe? I know that most of you aren’t here to deny the objective history of the Church; you’re here to stay LDS, just in a unique way. How? How do I deal with this cognitive dissonance? How do I deal with the fact the Prophets and Apostles have be so wrong, on so many issues? Doesn’t that just strengthen the argument that Mormonism, like all religion, is man-made? I can see how various elements of an LDS lifestyle are beneficial, and can help one be happy, but can it ever be real? For me, I need the Church to be real in order for it to help me. I need to find a way to reconcile all of the contradictions, and as of now, I am stumped; that’s why I’m agnostic. I don’t buy into any religion–not just Mormonism–because they all have similar underlying flaws. For those of you that fully buy into science, and accept the “critical” history of the Church, how do you still find a way to be LDS? For that matter, what does that even mean, what does “being” LDS even mean? Anyway, I’d appreciate feedback. Thanks.

[wordsleuth23]

This was one of the first books I read about Mormonism that wasn’t “faith promoting”. It’s been about 5 years, so my knowledge of the book is hazy. I will say that, at least at the time, I found Palmer’s analysis to be fairly unconvincing. He seemed to go off on tangents that are stretches; attempting to criticize or theorize about the Church with really iffy stuff doesn’t do it for me. A friend of mine knows Grant personally–their study sessions led to the writing of this book–and he feels like Grant wandered off the reservation a bit. Some of the book seemed accurate, and I found it fascinating. However, as a whole, a book like this doesn’t compare in the slightest to an academic book like the kind written by D. Michael Quinn.

[wordsleuth23]

Heber13 wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

At the end of the day, science deals with things that can be tested, and the core issues of religion can not be tested.

Isn’t Alma 32 the scientific test for religion? You just have to use different kinds of beakers and flasks.

Yeah, the have special “spiritual” flasks that glow a certain color when enough faith is involved, and that allows one to determine the ultimate reason for an objects existence. In testing the bones of ancient animals and people, the color gets bright red if God’s hand was involved.

[wordsleuth23]

I haven’t ready every post of this thread, but I would like to add a few thoughts. To me, science and the gospel are–in the words of Stephen Gould–non-overlapping magisteria. They are different spheres that don’t support each other. I know that plenty of scientists have done a lot to try and advocate the overlap of science and religion, but to me, that is a stretch that can’t be made. At the end of the day, science deals with things that can be tested, and the core issues of religion can not be tested. Believing that science is accurate, and also believing in religion, are possible, but they certainly don’t work together. Some may believe/explain evolution with the idea that God started it, or that God created the spark that started the Big Bang; however, these “theories” aren’t testable. Beliefs of this nature contradict science–they lie in the realm of faith–and they will always be contradictory. Unless we develop a method for testing whether God was involved or not, the two fields won’t ever mesh. I might believe I have a spirit within my body, and at some point that may be testable, but for now it is an untestable theory, and as a result it doesn’t work with science. Once again, this doesn’t mean I can’t completely believe in science and religion, but in doing so I am going to create some cognitive dissonance that can’t be eliminated.

[wordsleuth23]

swimordie wrote:

I think, wordsleuth, you may be under the impression that staylds means “buy in”. Most people here have rejected that. In fact, I may be the ultimate paradox: I left so that I could stay. Maybe I’m the statistical norm! 😆 😆

I don’t believe staylds means buy in, that is why I’m here. I think it is a place for those of us that aren’t “normal” to discuss our “rebellious” ideas. I was merely wondering how one deals with normative behaviors they disagree with, especially when those behaviors are advocated by Bishops, Stake Presidents, and GA’s.

[wordsleuth23]

Thanks for the supportive comments. I don’t intend to be a negative influence here. I do intend to ask questions when things don’t make sense; I do intend to expect things to add up reasonably well for me to “believe” something; and I do intend to point out things that trouble me. I don’t want to cause problems, but in order for me to find any help here, I need to discuss subjects to their fullest; no boundaries. Boundaries are the trouble I’ve always had since I stopped believing; Church leaders and classes are so bound up that there isn’t any room for abstract thought, though provoking questions, or questioning thoughts of any nature.

[Author]

Posts