The Truth about Mormons

[Bushrat]

Hello,

 

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.... also known as Mormons.  I love this site and the content produced by Stefan and the FDR team. However I have noticed that on a couple of occasions some inaccurate information about Mormons was posted and spoken in the videos/podcasts. I hope that this post can help clarify some of the mis-information out there about us Mormons. I hope we can respectful and have an intelligent discussion. Its strange, mos of the criticisms that Stefan makes about religion I also agree with, they also don't fit with the truth about my faith. I am not trying to 'convert' anyone, just clarify information.

 

SO.... if you have any questions please feel free to ask me. I am an active member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, I served a full time mission for 2 years and joined the Church when I 16. . I DO NOT speak officially for the church, just myself. I welcome your comments and questions. 

 

Cheers,

 

Bushrat

[dsayers]

I hope we can respectful and have an intelligent discussion.

Is it respectful to imply that people are not these things before they're even given the chance to speak?

 

You're welcome to call into the show if you'd like -  just email me!

I've emailed three times and received no reply

[AccuTron]

Bushrat, do you have some starter topics?  Common things you'd like to address?

[Bushrat]

Is it respectful to imply that people are not these things before they're even given the chance to speak?

 

I've emailed three times and received no reply

To be fair, I have seen a few threads that have degraded into insulting on bulletin boards. So, I just wanted to to be clear that I didn't want things go that way at all. I am sorry if your offended by what I said, I didn't mean to be disrespectful by saying that.. I don't think too many people would be insulting or disrespectful, but wanted to be clear about it, religion is an easy topic to get disrespectful about.

Bushrat, do you have some starter topics?  Common things you'd like to address?

some topics to start.... hmmm...

 

Well, I have seen that many people criticize churches and religion for saying you have original sin. I have the same criticism, Mormons do not believe in original sin an the same sense that other churches believe. We believe in the fall of Adam and Eve, but that we are not 'evil'. I person cannot be responsible for their actions until they are able to understand  right and wrong. We call this the 'age of accountability', and in our church we believe that age is 8 yrs old.  

 

Also, our concept of hell is not the same as other religions. We believe in a concept we call different degrees of glory. There is a scripture that likens it unto the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. In other words, you will receive some kind of reward unless you are a really evil or a very very bad person.I would say that very few people in the world would be sent to the lowest area, which is lower that the glory of the Stars... this area is called Outer Darkness. Our focus in the church is to try to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest degree of glory. 

 

Maybe these topics would start the dialogue.

 

Cheers,

 

Bushrat

[dsayers]

To be fair, I have seen a few threads that have degraded into insulting on bulletin boards.

In what way is projecting one experience onto people not involved fair?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Is it respectful to imply that people are not these things before they're even given the chance to speak?

Haha, I'm relatively new here. But you and others so far have demonstrated that this forum is full of overly sensitive individuals who are very vocal with nitpicking and complaining. One of my very first posts had people complaining about "manipulative language" and how I was insensitive to victims of abuse... maybe like college campuses we should start a safe-space board here. Don't want to trigger anyone.

 

Well, I have seen that many people criticize churches and religion for saying you have original sin. I have the same criticism, Mormons do not believe in original sin an the same sense that other churches believe. We believe in the fall of Adam and Eve, but that we are not 'evil'. I person cannot be responsible for their actions until they are able to understand  right and wrong. We call this the 'age of accountability', and in our church we believe that age is 8 yrs old.

I am a former Mormon who also served a mission. Well, technically still a member, but I will likely never participate again. I agree that misinformation on Mormons is rampant, and people like to put a lot of emphasis on likely flaws of Joseph Smith as if that influences the validity of his claims in any way. I can agree that Mormonism is a slightly more sensible form of Christianity in terms of their beliefs, but it ultimately faces the same problems as all other supernatural and mystical claims. Beyond the wishful thinking of an afterlife, which is a natural consequence of our evolutionary innate fear of death, I see no reason to believe in one god over another. And my inclination to think there exists some creator is mostly unfounded, likely another innate intuition which has led all human societies historically to invent some creator entity (or entities). As we understand more about the physical universe, the less need we have to rationalize mystical claims as a substitute for understanding.

 

Mormons also essentially question the omnipotence of God, making note of certain "eternal laws" that even God must follow, which is why God had to essentially "put up" with the Fall of Adam, the crucifixion/atonement of Christ, and all other elements of the "Plan of Salvation". This actually makes a lot more sense to me than absolutely omnipotence (which is a self-defeating idea in many ways), but I still never understood why "faith" is considered some godly eternal principle which we are on Earth to experience and improve upon. Faith is literally living your life following unverified claims. People often like to claim that they've experienced such strong "Spiritual feelings" that they have extreme certainly of the validity of certain things. It was the feeding of these delusions that I had the biggest problem with. I can respect people casually thinking some god exists (like thinking alien life exist is fine), and I think Christ was a noble person in many ways, but I don't see it as noble or respectable to completely immerse yourself into this unfounded idea.

[Jer]

Is there any Mormon doctrine about spanking?

[shirgall]

Is there any Mormon doctrine about spanking?

 

http://mormonfamily.net/children_discipline

 

 

...

 

Punishment should never be the main point in raising a child.  Controlling a child’s behavior minutely should never be a main point in raising a child.  Every child is going to do things that parents don’t like and that parents don’t approve of.  And very young (or very teenage) children may do these things often, at that.  Parents will not be able to slap down every instance of misbehavior—and shouldn’t.  There are ways to discipline that don’t involve striking fear into the little “miscreant” child’s heart.

 

Research has presented us with three styles of disciplining children.  The first involves what some people think of immediately when they think of discipline.  Hitting, yelling, immediate (or delayed) and often harsh punishments for everything a child does wrong.  Although this method might work in the short term—the child will often stop whatever he’s doing through pure fear—it’s actually damaging in the long term.  Children disciplined in this way often grow up afraid to be spontaneous, withdrawn, and socially inept.  In fact, they are often also aggressive and have less of a conscience, rather than more of one.  This kind of discipline, used often, creates fear and discomfort, rather than communication and love, and the children suffer under it.  In the end, they don’t even learn the lessons they were supposed to learn.

 

...

[rosencrantz]

The Mormon religion makes a lot of claims about historical events that can be disproven. What is your take on those Bushrat?

[dsayers]

this forum is full of overly sensitive individuals who are very vocal with nitpicking and complaining. One of my very first posts had people complaining about "manipulative language"

Such as asserting "overly sensitive" and "nitpicking" instead of having an honest conversation about your experience with another human being?

[Troubador]

I'm afraid I'm with dsayers on that one that language is rude. There are not just theists here, but actual anti-theists as well. Read the room, or failing that take a look at Stefan's post titled "To our religious friends" in the welcome section. It will help to gather an idea of the lay of the land without having to re-tread the same cycles that don't go anywhere.

 

I've brought this up before on other threads but I'll repeat myself here for emphasis, being an atheist actually opens up someone to be discriminated against in most modern societies, and in some can see you marked for death. What you are reading as over-sensitivity may well be hostility. Even if that is the case it is a response I can empathise with however I wouldn't like to leave you without a reference so I'd like to point you at an abstract of a study by the University of British Colombia:

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0025882

 

I'm sure you are all lovely and wouldn't discriminate, but keep an eye on the cultural landscape these discussions take place in. Anyway peace out!

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Such as asserting "overly sensitive" and "nitpicking" instead of having an honest conversation about your experience with another human being?

Yes, although that's very honest. Just get over it and discuss the topic at hand. Everything you've said thus far is an off-topic distraction.

[shirgall]

Yes, although that's very honest. Just get over it and discuss the topic at hand. Everything you've said thus far is an off-topic distraction.

 

Not really, when you first meet someone you treat them with politeness and respect, but from that point forward you treat them the way they treat you. @dsayers was pointing out that someone seeking a discussion was poisoning the well under the color in which the discussion framework was being described.

 

If, instead, the conversation had started out with "I'd like to share my experience with the Mormon Church, which is different than the narrative in Episode xxx where Stefan said, x, y, and z." This is a totally different way to spark a discussion, based on facts and experience that may be contrary to conclusions reached in the show.

[csekavec]

The truth is that most LDS are some of the nicest, generous, empathetic people who live principle centered lives. In my experience more than any other religious group if you ask them to explain themselves you are likely to get a secular answer. It seems most believe that there is a congruence between earthly truth and the eternal god that supersedes even holy writ or prophetic statement.  However the official position on the church is that of supporting the orthodoxy.  I think this helps to explain the huge lag in the 1890 and 1978 decisions.

 

Because of the history of violent persecution from the United States congress the majority of LDS are small government types. Unfortunately despite the horrible past LDS people are forbidden from being anarchists by the 12th article of faith. 

[ThomasTheIdealist]

@dsayers was pointing out that someone seeking a discussion was poisoning the well under the color in which the discussion framework was being described.

OP said "I hope we can respectful and have an intelligent discussion." That's a pretty standard issue remark when speaking with people who oppose you. Considering that disrespect is off-the-wall sensitive.

[Cuffy_Meigs]

Well, I have seen that many people criticize churches and religion for saying you have original sin. I have the same criticism, Mormons do not believe in original sin an the same sense that other churches believe. We believe in the fall of Adam and Eve, but that we are not 'evil'. I person cannot be responsible for their actions until they are able to understand  right and wrong. We call this the 'age of accountability', and in our church we believe that age is 8 yrs old.  

 

Also, our concept of hell is not the same as other religions. We believe in a concept we call different degrees of glory. There is a scripture that likens it unto the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. In other words, you will receive some kind of reward unless you are a really evil or a very very bad person.I would say that very few people in the world would be sent to the lowest area, which is lower that the glory of the Stars... this area is called Outer Darkness. Our focus in the church is to try to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest degree of glory. 

 

Hi Bushrat. I am an atheist who has read the Bible (all of it) but I know little about Mormonism. From the examples you cite, the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible (or at the very least would suggest it is incomplete). How do you square this? Is the Bible not divinely revealed and why would your god wait until 1820 (?) before revealing the 'true' nature of things?

 

Would you claim your beliefs to be rational, as some religious people insist?

[dsayers]

That's a pretty standard issue remark when speaking with people who oppose you.

There wasn't any other people.

[Bushrat]

http://mormonfamily.net/children_discipline

 

 

That link pretty much sums up our beliefs about spanking. I myself do not, and have not spanked my children (I have two daughters and 4 step sons). I was spanked as  child and feel no ill will towards my parents about it. However I feel that there are far more effective ways to discipline a child without imposing physical force. Spankers should keep in mind that if they rely on spanking, the children will reach a certain age when spanking will no longer be possible or effective because the children are too large... what will they do then?

 

The Mormon religion makes a lot of claims about historical events that can be disproven. What is your take on those Bushrat?

 

Can you give me some examples of this? I have a history degree and have so far not found any inconsistencies. 

 

 

Hi Bushrat. I am an atheist who has read the Bible (all of it) but I know little about Mormonism. From the examples you cite, the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible (or at the very least would suggest it is incomplete). How do you square this? Is the Bible not divinely revealed and why would your god wait until 1820 (?) before revealing the 'true' nature of things?

 

Would you claim your beliefs to be rational, as some religious people insist?

 

Mormons use the Bible as scripture, with the caveat that as far as it has been translated correctly. Keep in mind that the oldest text we have from New Testament books is from the 3rd century, so this is a rational caveat I think. I have read the Bible several times and use it my life regularly when studying topics. I have not found any contradictions thus far. As far as waiting until 1820, I would not claim to know all the reasons that God waited until 1820 to reveal things is that we believe that there was an apostasy that was predicted to take place before another 'dispensation' of the Gospel. We believe this did take place shortly after the death of most of the Apostles. Also, it is our belief that in order for the full Gospel to be able to take hold there had to be the right setting and place for acceptance. Given the amount of persecution the early Mormons received, I think my church would not have been permitted to take hold in any of the European countries at the time. That's just my thought... I think one the main factors that my church survived is that they fled to Utah  in the 1850's and onward where they were able to practice our faith without much persecution.

 

As far as rational, that's a tough one...by nature religion is irrational. But I have found space for it in my mind by accepting that there are, and will be things in this world that cannot be explained by science. By nature I am very skeptical person.Which seems like a contradiction from a Mormon, but it's true, I don't get convinced of things too easily and usually need to see a great deal evidence about something in order to be convinced. I suppose that I consider myself rational, but know enough to say that I can never have all the answers for a rational explanation for everything.

 

 

The truth is that most LDS are some of the nicest, generous, empathetic people who live principle centered lives. In my experience more than any other religious group if you ask them to explain themselves you are likely to get a secular answer. It seems most believe that there is a congruence between earthly truth and the eternal god that supersedes even holy writ or prophetic statement.  However the official position on the church is that of supporting the orthodoxy.  I think this helps to explain the huge lag in the 1890 and 1978 decisions.

 

Because of the history of violent persecution from the United States congress the majority of LDS are small government types. Unfortunately despite the horrible past LDS people are forbidden from being anarchists by the 12th article of faith. 

 

Oh be sure, that we can be anarchists... some of my LDS friends are anarchists. But to clarify, we believe that we are lawfully able to be subject to kings, rulers etc. This addresses the claim that the Catholics often use,  saying that kings are subject to Gods Law, and that the Church on earth is not subject to the king. We say that the church 'government' or leadership is subject to kings and rulers and not above the law as some churches claim.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Actually, he asked whether OP considered it respectful. Dsayers did not assert his own assessment.

Is it really appropriate to be such an overly-sensitive douchebag when commenting here?

 

I'm not asserting an assessment of course, just asking, completely independent of context.  

 

Can you give me some examples of this? I have a history degree and have so far not found any inconsistencies.

There's a decent wikipedia summary of most of the inaccuracies:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

Geneticists have also seen no evidence of the Americans being genetically linked to Israel as the Book of Mormon suggests:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#The_genetic_challenge

[neeeel]

But I have found space for it in my mind by accepting that there are, and will be things in this world that cannot be explained by science

 

 

 

Possibly this is true, but even if it is, why do you think the bible explains those things? 

[AccuTron]

"...they fled to Utah  in the 1850's and onward where they were able to practice our faith without much persecution."

 

Being a military history reader, I read about the strife in many communities along the way to Utah.  I also read that the US Army and the Utah Mormons came within almost a literal match throw of war.  Cool heads at the right moment.  

 

This topic, which I read several years ago, helped me realize the benevolent-federalist propaganda upbringing that I had.  Not saying black and white conclusions, but it got me thinking.

...http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0025882...

"distrust was fully mediated by the belief that people behave better if they feel that God is watching them"

 

Brief digression: In sick irony, right now I am realizing (and thanks to a helpful cousin on this) that some Southern Baptist former in-laws (I'm divorced) who are utterly drenched in daily Godliness (recent dripping email) utterly refuse to renounce a clearly fraudulent product being pushed by themselves.  Blatant can't miss it evidence supplied in abundance by myself; no reply to it at all...just how awash in God they were.  The atheist fights crime, the so-called Godlies won't renounce it.  

 

I am relieved in a sense, because it all fits together, old news, no need to hold false hope.

[WasatchMan]

The Truth About Mormons: Dum Dum Dum Dum DUM

 

[csekavec]

Can you give me some examples of this? I have a history degree and have so far not found any inconsistencies. 

 

The book of Mormon, particularly as described in Alma could describe many geographic regions. Smith was almost certainly describing the hopewell indian culture. But because this was right in his back yard the current orthodoxy changed their mind in the 50's to claim instead that the book describes mesoamerica. I find this shift dishonest because mesoamerica has far less correlating evidence. Hopewell people built fortifications and forts that correspond exactly to the forts used by Teancum. And they disappeared without a trace. I think because Smith would have known all about these people is why the Mormon archaeologists are loath to admit that the BoM is post-hoc description of the mounds that Smith explored during early adulthood.

 

 

Geneticists have also seen no evidence of the Americans being genetically linked to Israel as the Book of Mormon suggests:

 

According to the story all the Jewish folks were wiped out. Only those descended from the brother of Jared survived.  Though why 'prophets' taught for years contrary to the BoM text and said the aboriginal american tribes were 'lamanites' I can't say. But the book itself doesn't contradict.

[Bushrat]

Is it really appropriate to be such an overly-sensitive douchebag when commenting here?

 

I'm not asserting an assessment of course, just asking, completely independent of context.  

 

 

There's a decent wikipedia summary of most of the inaccuracies:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

Geneticists have also seen no evidence of the Americans being genetically linked to Israel as the Book of Mormon suggests:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#The_genetic_challenge

 

Most of the so called inaccuracies on the Wikipedia site have been provided with a short rebuttal by an 'apologist' (a term I find mildly condescending). I agree with most of the rebuttals.

 

As far as the genetics, the Book of Mormon does not claim that the ALL of the people in America came over on the boat with Lehi and his followers, there very may have been other people here on the American continents when they arrived. 

 

Please keep in mind that the Book of Mormon itself does not claim to be a full historical text, but rather a text describing the descendants of Lehi and his followers dealings with God. Many people in and out of the church have tried to determine historical settings for the book, but I think these will ultimately not be able to be proven or dis-proven  because the text admits that it is written by imperfect men who were recording the spiritual events over the historical events.

 

 

 

Possibly this is true, but even if it is, why do you think the bible explains those things? 

 

I don't think the Bible answers a lot of those things, but is rather a good place to start. As a Mormon I rely on all available texts and teachings from modern day prophets.

 

 

The book of Mormon, particularly as described in Alma could describe many geographic regions. Smith was almost certainly describing the hopewell indian culture. But because this was right in his back yard the current orthodoxy changed their mind in the 50's to claim instead that the book describes mesoamerica. I find this shift dishonest because mesoamerica has far less correlating evidence. Hopewell people built fortifications and forts that correspond exactly to the forts used by Teancum. And they disappeared without a trace. I think because Smith would have known all about these people is why the Mormon archaeologists are loath to admit that the BoM is post-hoc description of the mounds that Smith explored during early adulthood.

 

 

 

According to the story all the Jewish folks were wiped out. Only those descended from the brother of Jared survived.  Though why 'prophets' taught for years contrary to the BoM text and said the aboriginal american tribes were 'lamanites' I can't say. But the book itself doesn't contradict.

 

The Church has never came out with an official statement on where exactly the Book of Mormon took place except for that it took place here on America-- possibly North and South.We believe it was Moroni who buried the plates in New York state, but we don't really know where he may have lived before that. People, including Joseph Smith may have speculated on where it may have taken place without any full knowledge of the actual places.

 

The Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites were descendants of Lehi who was from Jerusalem. When the Nephites ( also descended from Lehi) were being wiped out, some were given the choice to deny God and join the Lamanites or be killed, many of them might have chosen to deny God which also would have continued their gene line.  Near the end of the Book, the difference between Lamanites and Nephites was more a difference in religious and political alignment rather than a racial or genetic line.

[Walter E. Strong]

"....religion is an easy topic to get disrespectful about."

 

 

Can't argue with that!!

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Walter E. Strong

[neeeel]

 

 

 

 

I don't think the Bible answers a lot of those things, but is rather a good place to start. As a Mormon I rely on all available texts and teachings from modern day prophets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think this answers my question though. why do you think the bible , or religious teachings, can answer the questions that science cant answer? What is it about the bible that gives it authority, for example?

[Torero]

Welcome here, Bushrat.

 

I also do not speak for others, just myself, and think that personal supernatural beliefs are a much less dangerous enemy of rationality and the quest for freedom of slavery than statism because religions only have indoctrination and not the guns, laws and the mask of pseudo-rationality statism (often anti-religious as Bakunin already pointed out).

 

That said I am a rational individualist and please do not mind me pointing out this contradiction in your (capitalization is originally yours) words:

 

I DO NOT speak officially for the church, just myself. I welcome your comments and questions. 

 

This contradicts with:

 

 

 

We believe in the fall of Adam and Eve, but that we are not 'evil'. I person cannot be responsible for their actions until they are able to understand  right and wrong. We call this the 'age of accountability', and in our church we believe that age is 8 yrs old.  

Also, our concept of hell is not the same as other religions. We believe in a concept we call different degrees of glory. There is a scripture that likens it unto the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. In other words, you will receive some kind of reward unless you are a really evil or a very very bad person.I would say that very few people in the world would be sent to the lowest area

 

Are you stating the "established values every Mormon has to follow" or are you phrasing your personal beliefs?

 

They may coincide, but can you speak for all Mormons and "what they believe"?

 

 

 

In the early 1980s, the apparent discovery of an early Mormon manuscript, which came to be known as the "Salamander Letter", received much publicity. This letter, reportedly discovered by a scholar named Mark Hofmann, alleged that the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith by a being that changed itself into a salamander, not by an angel as the official Church history recounted.

 

Just reading this on wiki. A salamander?

 

Cheers,

 

Torero

[Bushrat]

I dont think this answers my question though. why do you think the bible , or religious teachings, can answer the questions that science cant answer? What is it about the bible that gives it authority, for example?

 

I think this would be a very long question to answer, but I'll try to be brief. When I was looking for answers about why we are here, where did we come from, what is the purpose of life, I found my religion. It answered all of my questions in a way that made an immense amount of sense to me. I have never found anything yet that makes me seriously doubt the conclusions I have come to.  I think the path of each Mormon is very different and individuals. What gives religion authority?... well, if you believe that the source of wisdom and the source of truth comes from this set of beliefs or church for that matter, then you accept the teachings of that church.... and my church has a prophet and leaders at its head who I believe are divinely inspired. I accept their guidance on matters that are important to me.

 

 

Welcome here, Bushrat.

 

I also do not speak for others, just myself, and think that personal supernatural beliefs are a much less dangerous enemy of rationality and the quest for freedom of slavery than statism because religions only have indoctrination and not the guns, laws and the mask of pseudo-rationality statism (often anti-religious as Bakunin already pointed out).

 

That said I am a rational individualist and please do not mind me pointing out this contradiction in your (capitalization is originally yours) words:

 

 

This contradicts with:

 

 

 

 

Are you stating the "established values every Mormon has to follow" or are you phrasing your personal beliefs?

 

They may coincide, but can you speak for all Mormons and "what they believe"?

 

 

 

 

Just reading this on wiki. A salamander?

 

Cheers,

 

Torero

 

I guess I should have said that most Mormons believe that..... Or that I believe that. My mistake.

 

 

The 'Salamander Letters' as they have become known, were proven to be forgeries and were perpetrated by a man who had a personal vendetta against the Mormon church, he created several forgeries and he later planted bombs and murdered people. It was discovered that he falsified all of these documents,  

[Torero]

I guess I should have said that most Mormons believe that..... Or that I believe that. My mistake.

 

Sorry but the same argument goes for most Mormons. Everyone's belief (or disbelief) is different. We can impossibly look in someone's head, especially not when it is about the deepest personal thoughts like (dis)belief. Speaking for others ("all", "most", etc.) in terms of what they (don't) believe in is dangerous ground.

 

I believe that... is of course your own admittance. That's the way to go, I'd say.

 

 

 

The 'Salamander Letters' as they have become known, were proven to be forgeries and were perpetrated by a man who had a personal vendetta against the Mormon church, he created several forgeries and he later planted bombs and murdered people. It was discovered that he falsified all of these documents,

 

Ok, thanks, seems valid. There are many forgeries in present and past and people slandering are also around since the Pleistocene.

[neeeel]

I think this would be a very long question to answer, but I'll try to be brief. When I was looking for answers about why we are here, where did we come from, what is the purpose of life, I found my religion. It answered all of my questions in a way that made an immense amount of sense to me. I have never found anything yet that makes me seriously doubt the conclusions I have come to.  I think the path of each Mormon is very different and individuals. What gives religion authority?... well, if you believe that the source of wisdom and the source of truth comes from this set of beliefs or church for that matter, then you accept the teachings of that church.... and my church has a prophet and leaders at its head who I believe are divinely inspired. I accept their guidance on matters that are important to me.

 

 

 

 

Right, I get that. But, it still doesnt answer my question. Which is, why ? You say "if you believe that the source of wisdom and truth comes from" but this is just saying "I believe that". 

Why do you believe that? Why is this a good way to answer the unanswerable questions, and science isnt?

 

Im sure I could come up with a semi coherent explanation of things, that hung together and "made sense". But that doesnt mean anything. You can come up with "what if " scenarios for anything, and they dont necessarily get you closer to the truth.

[Bushrat]

Right, I get that. But, it still doesnt answer my question. Which is, why ? You say "if you believe that the source of wisdom and truth comes from" but this is just saying "I believe that". 

Why do you believe that? Why is this a good way to answer the unanswerable questions, and science isnt?

 

Im sure I could come up with a semi coherent explanation of things, that hung together and "made sense". But that doesnt mean anything. You can come up with "what if " scenarios for anything, and they dont necessarily get you closer to the truth.

 

I've never said that science does not answer many questions.... I think science answers a lot of questions, but it can never answer the questions of 'why am I here?' or ' whats the purpose of life?'.  As you say... many people feel they have the answer to these questions,and many are different than the answers I have found. Why do I believe my answers are the truth? Well, then I would get into my spiritual experiences mixed with some of the logic that I followed to get  there. I am not sure I want to put all that out there in this forum because its very personal. I hope to be able answer peoples questions about Mormons. If I know you better and I feel some sort of mutual respect between us then I would probably share my experiences and tell you my deep thoughts on the matter on a one to one dialogue. 

[Torero]

I've never said that science does not answer many questions.... I think science answers a lot of questions, but it can never answer the questions of 'why am I here?' or ' whats the purpose of life?'.  As you say... many people feel they have the answer to these questions,...

 

Those existential questions are not the field of science.

A scientist also doesn't ask "why is water liquid*?"

The right question to ask is "what causes water to be liquid?"

 

The purpose of life is coming from either religion or philosophy**. You've come to an arena where the latter is well developed.

 

* at room temperatures and atmospheric pressures

** or nihilism; emptiness to the max

[ThomasTheIdealist]

I think science answers a lot of questions, but it can never answer the questions of 'why am I here?' or ' whats the purpose of life?'.

If I see a large rock in a forest, why would I ask "why is this here? What is its purpose?" That's only something I ask if there are signs that the rock has been carved or positioned unnaturally, presumably by some external entity. So the questions you ask presuppose some design, and so of course a supernatural creator would be an answer to that. But it's a huge leap, like me assuming any old rock on the ground was explicitly placed there by someone for some special reason. Nope, it's likely just there... for no purpose whatsoever. But I'm free to pick it up and give it purpose.

[Bushrat]

 

Sorry but the same argument goes for most Mormons. Everyone's belief (or disbelief) is different. We can impossibly look in someone's head, especially not when it is about the deepest personal thoughts like (dis)belief. Speaking for others ("all", "most", etc.) in terms of what they (don't) believe in is dangerous ground.

 

I believe that... is of course your own admittance. That's the way to go, I'd say.

 

 

 

 

Ok, thanks, seems valid. There are many forgeries in present and past and people slandering are also around since the Pleistocene.

 

I think you are right, BUT having said that, being a Mormon I have  a great deal of experience talking to other Mormons and am intimately familiar with the main teachings of the church.. (having taught at various levels in the church).. I can confidently say that most of the Mormons I have met would believe x or y. 

 

Those existential questions are not the field of science.

A scientist also doesn't ask "why is water liquid*?"

The right question to ask is "what causes water to be liquid?"

 

The purpose of life is coming from either religion or philosophy**. You've come to an arena where the latter is well developed.

 

* at room temperatures and atmospheric pressures

** or nihilism; emptiness to the max

 

 

To be fair, I'm not the one who brought up science in this discussion, or proposed that it offered answers to life's questions, but was rather responding to somebody's question. I am somewhat new to the study of philosophy. So far its a very interesting topic and offers a refreshing rational discussion about reason and logic.  I have found Stefan's logical conclusions mostly in line with my own conclusions, the existence of God being one of the few differences of course.

[Bushrat]

If I see a large rock in a forest, why would I ask "why is this here? What is its purpose?" That's only something I ask if there are signs that the rock has been carved or positioned unnaturally, presumably by some external entity. So the questions you ask presuppose some design, and so of course a supernatural creator would be an answer to that. But it's a huge leap, like me assuming any old rock on the ground was explicitly placed there by someone for some special reason. Nope, it's likely just there... for no purpose whatsoever. But I'm free to pick it up and give it purpose.

 

I think this thread on this topic is going onto another tangent. I wrote this post to clear up misconceptions about Mormons.  We can have a discussion about the existence of God on another topic if you like.... i can start or you can, but lets put this question to another topic thread.