Posted by: jdog ®
05/23/2003, 14:39:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
Phish,
You ask "Can evolution and LDS doctrine both be true?" What is truth? i would ask Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard. That is according to Dictionary.com, but i'm sure most others are similar.
They could both be true. Can a glass be half full and half empty at the same time? It is all in the eyes of the beholder. Could evolution have occured? Yes. Could Adam have fell according to how it is described in the scriptures? Yes. Again, it is all in the eyes of the beholder.
Can the BofM be true translation of actual historical events? Yes.
Can the BofM be a book of made up fairy tales? Yes.
It all depends on what you choose to believe. I believe it is important to choose your beliefs. Beliefs based upon the info YOU have gathered, the experiences YOU have had, and beliefs that help make YOU happy. I believe that beliefs should change as more info is gathered and more experiences are had.
Can i be a nutty screwball for believing this way? YES
Can i be an openminded optimistic faithful christian? YES
Jdog
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/23/2003, 16:17:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey jdog, thanks for the reply... I think you should read over the entry in the bible dictionary again under Fall of Adam. You have answered my question with a simple yes, but I'd like to hear more. LDS doctrine clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and that reproduction and physical death for all creatures entered the world at the time of the fall. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that reproduction and death have been a part of the cycle for billions of years, long before Adam & Eve would have come on the scene. Don't you see that the two ideas are mutually exclusive? It's either evolution, or no death before the fall. They cannot both be true.I strongly disagree with you that truth is only in the eye of the beholder. I believe that there are natural laws and truths that exist, and no matter what we believe these truths will not be changed. You can't make something true just by believing in it. For example, when people used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe, did that make it true? Of course not. Similarly, just because someone believes that there was no death before the fall doesn't make that a historical fact. -phishhead p.s. jdog, I noticed in your profile that you served a mission in Honduras... hmmm... now you describe yourself as an open-minded Christian. If you have the time, I'd like to hear more, but I'm most interested in your further explanation of how a Mormon can believe in evolution and LDS doctrine at the same time.
|
Posted by: jdog ®
05/25/2003, 12:09:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ok Phish,
i enjoyed reading what you had to say, and you make some good points. To just give a brief reply for now since i'm in a hurry, I'll say this: God created a plan that included choices, the most important of which is the choice to believe. Would we really have this choice if the theory of Evolution was 100% proven? Or if the story of Adam and Eve was 100% proven? That choice would have been taken from us, or made for us. But because of these two contradictions in science and Mormonism we are free to choose what to believe. I choose to believe that God purposefully made a number of contradictions in order to give us choices, to exercise our minds, to promote prayer. I admire your desire to search for truth, and its disappointing to see so many mormons stop searching because they believe they have it. I believe that if we work diligently to learn the truth(or that which we choose to believe as true) then we will be told the real TRUTH in the next life and be rewarded for having tried.
Phish, what do you choose to believe and why? Jdog
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/26/2003, 21:31:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
jdog, you had it right in your first post when you said that you could be a nutty screwball for believing this way. I see no logic in your thinking. Let me break it down for you. You wrote:God created a plan that included choices, the most important of which is the choice to believe. Would we really have this choice if the theory of Evolution was 100% proven? I don't think I personally have a choice, because the evidence supporting evolution is so overwhelming, that it's not a matter of choice anymore. The verdict is out. Evolution is true. What is left to choose? Then you wrote: I choose to believe that God purposefully made a number of contradictions in order to give us choices, to exercise our minds, to promote prayer. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that one! Dude, you are crazy! Are you saying that God lies? That he deceives or tricks us? Do you really believe that? Why should I worship such a being? I am an honest seeker of truth. I would only be interested in worshipping a god who will be honest with me, not screw with my head with intentional contradicitons. I agree that contradictions are present throughout Mormonism as well as all religion, but I believe the source is man, not some clever prankster god. Finally, you asked, what do you choose to believe and why? I'm not really sure how to answer that question without writing my life story. But I'll start with saying that I definitely believe there was death in the world before 4000 B.C. (the alleged time of the fall) because evolution testifies of it, and therefore Mormon doctrine is wrong and could not have come from God.
|
Posted by: jdog ®
05/27/2003, 11:06:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Phish, God doesn't trick, or decieve us, but he does test us. Is evolution 100% proven? Not from the classes and books i've been taught by. Is the proof overwhelming to me too? Ofcourse it is. Was there death before Adam? Science says so, but keep in mind that many of these deaths weren't homo sapiens, but other bipedal hominids. Were they children of God? And if so, at what point? Did god finally just say "Ok your brain is now big enough so here is a choice spirit for your body. Sorry about your grandma and grandpa though, they are still just animals." My question isn't helping my argument much, and is more of one that should be posted for a steadfast believer to answer. But i just wanted to remind you that the death you refer to before adam was by many different species. If you are right about the 4000 BC, which i am unclear of how you can be so sure on that time frame, then yes your doubts are disturbing, but they are not enough to convince me that the church wasn't established by a higher loving power. Jdog
|
Posted by: Christopher ®
05/27/2003, 16:21:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi, I haven't been around here for a while either.My opinion is that a literal interpretation of many of the older Bible stories cannot stand up to science--not even to our current scientific knowledge, which is far from whole. I believe that any doctrine which insists on literal interpretations is painting itself into a corner. After going through all the basic phases of belief system rejection, I've since been able to return to scripture from a non-believer's POV. There are some great stories in there. As ancient mythology--Hebrew and beyond--it can be enriching. But trying to reconcile with modern scientific understanding a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Noah's ark, a literal tower of Babel? No thanks. jdog--even if evolution were "100% proven", we can be assured that there will always be unknowns. Only in omniscience would we truly be deprived of opportunities to practice faith. Chris
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/23/2003, 23:02:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey Phishhead,The key problem for anyone hoping to reconcile evolution--let alone geology, archaeology, and other related sciences--with Mormonism is that the Restoration added a literalistic gloss on the scriptures it supplemented. The Book of Mormon, the D&C, and so forth, take the whole of scripture literally, including Adam and Noah, Abraham, the Exodus, and the Tower of Babel. This makes a liberal Mormonism accommodating science doubly hard. A Mormon liberal has to face the fact that Mormonism provided a second layer of literalism to an already literalistic traditional canon. At any rate, an Ensign essay stumping for the reality of the Tower of Babel, or of our literal descendence from Adam and Eve, is better rooted in the Mormon tradition than any liberalized take on these stories meant to reconcile the sciences and church teachings. Think of the D&C fantasy about the meeting at Adam-Ondi-Ahman. Think of the Book of Abraham, which would fall not only for the usual reasons you find in non-Mormon treatments of the papyri and so forth, but also if archeological and historical research were to make Abraham himself appear to be a legendary figure, which they have in fact done. Again, the restoration added to scripture by taking it literally. It expanded on the traditional stories to tell us how to interpret their meaning as events involving real people that the sciences--not just evolutionary biology--now tell couldn't literally have existed or happened. I think all of this goes to your general sense that there's something wrong in Mormon attempts to reconcile evolution and the gospel. Regards, Cal
Modified by Cal at Sat, May 24, 2003, 02:47:39
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/24/2003, 13:13:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
I can't help but agree with you that there is a fundamental and irreconcilable disagreement between the fact of evolution and a literal, dogmatic acceptance of what the highest officials of the LDS Church expect its members to believe. I also agree that the evidence supporting the fact of evolution is so strong, that any individual acquainted with that evidence who is both reasonable and honest must realize the untenability of many of the most fundamental tenets of Mormon doctrine and scripture. The only way leading proponents of the Church can get around this difficulty is to minimize or disparage the reliability of honest, intellectual inquiry based on the careful collection and consideration of objective evidence and facts, or at least subordinate the importance of such inquiry to subjective faith in divine revelation, prayer and scripture study. This is, in fact, what they do. In this respect, they do not significantly differ from other religious fundamentalists such as The Flat Earth Research Society and sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz.Gunnar
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/24/2003, 14:45:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
Let me respond by recommending a super fabulous book on the subject written by LDS scientists: Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding
by Trent D. Stephens, D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Forrest B. Peterson, Duane E. Jeffery As for me, I believe in evolution AND Adam. I also believe that most Mormons ignorantly take out-dated positions on this issue. Or, in other words, most Mormons have not thought much about this issue and so they fall in with the old views. I think that Mormon scientists can fairly easily reconcile for themselves that both are not mutually exclusive. Please get the book as it is a new milestone for this issue.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/24/2003, 15:00:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
You say, I think that Mormon scientists can fairly easily reconcile for themselves that both are not mutually exclusive.Well, I could qualify as a "Mormon scientist" who could never reconcile Evolution with Mormon doctrine. There are plenty more besides me. The "super fabulous book" that you recommend must engage in some "super fabulous" apologetics, Craig
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/24/2003, 15:28:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Sorry that my previous response was so vague.In order to reconcile evolution and the Adam and Eve story one has to throw out much of the Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie Literature on the subject. Prior to these two apostles were other apostles (Talmage and Widstoe to name two) who were very opposed to Joseph Fielding Smith's views. After Talmage and Widstoe died then Joseph Fielding Smith started to actively publish on this issue. President David O'McKay seemed to try to slow Smith down too (read the book). McConkie came along and sided with his father-in-law in denouncing evolution so much that most were afraid to touch it. This story is also told in another book called "Can Science be Faith-Promoting?" by Dr. Sterling B. Talmage (son of the apostle).
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/24/2003, 16:36:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
I am well aware of these Church leaders and the differences among them. In my opinion, though, the facts are now quite unequivocal. We know the process by which humanity came to be. We also know human migratory patterns in sufficient detail to say with confidence that both the Biblical account and the Book of Mormon are mythical. If you want to see what I mean, take a look at "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Craig
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/24/2003, 17:40:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey Craig! I just thought of something after reading this post. We often discuss here, the "myths" of religion. Let's take the Bible. Would it be fair to say that the "myths" of the Bible are man's explanation for what took place before him? Would it be likewise fair to say that the hmm...first hand accounts found in the Bible are just that, first hand accounts of actual events? Or at the very least, they could be considered as first hand accounts of actual events? Probably not, in your view, huh? In other words, could we make a distinction between Bible "speculator" and Bible "reporter/historian"? Following that, weigh the information of the Bible reporter/historian against other ancient resources?
Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sat, May 24, 2003, 17:44:06
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/24/2003, 17:59:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Vicki,You say, Would it be fair to say that the "myths" of the Bible are man's explanation for what took place before him? I don't think the prehistoric or contemporary nature of a story determines whether or not it is myth. You say, Would it be likewise fair to say that the hmm...first hand accounts found in the Bible are just that, first hand accounts of actual events? Or at the very least, they could be considered as first hand accounts of actual events? Probably not, in your view, huh? I would bet that some of the stories are first-hand accounts, but who knows which ones are and which are not? I've heard a lot of first hand accounts embellished by the storyteller. Did I ever tell you about that fish that got away ...? In other words, could we make a distinction between Bible "speculator" and Bible "reporter/historian"? Following that, weigh the information of the Bible reporter/historian against other ancient resources? I think everything in the Bible has to be weighed against other sources. Craig
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/24/2003, 18:59:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
I see your point but I still think it is possible for a "thinking" person to believe that there is a kernel of truth in those myths. I am not prepared to throw out the myths.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/24/2003, 19:15:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
The problem is that a "thinking person" can rationalize almost anything.
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/24/2003, 19:34:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Haha. Then that doesn't make a "thinking person" any better than a "non-thinking" person, does it? I don't think that makes sense.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/24/2003, 22:01:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
A thinking person may recognize and understand evidence but choose to compartmentalize. A non-thinking person may choose to avoid evidence altogether. The end effect could very well be the same.
Modified by Craig C. at Sat, May 24, 2003, 22:04:19
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/24/2003, 21:43:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
I went to amazon.com and read the reviews and then ordered the book. Thanks for the tip. I expect the book to be excellent but I do not expect it to be the last word.
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/25/2003, 01:42:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Fanpalm,I appreciate your input here, as active LDS members usually don't like to post here. Your perspective adds much needed balance to this board. Please stick around. The book you recommended sounds interesting. I read the reviews and plan on checking out the actual book eventually. In the meantime, I would like to hear more from you. Could you please explain how there can be "no death before the fall" and evolution at the same time. It still does not make sense to me. -phishhead
Modified by phishhead at Sun, May 25, 2003, 04:15:59
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/25/2003, 09:50:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
It doesn't make sense to me either. I consider the whole creation story as a riddle. Many think that the riddle has been completely solved but I think they are stuck in the classic paradigm that takes a long long time to shed. Most Mormons take a literal view of the creation story and never attempt to solve the riddle. They make no efforts at finding the symbolic meanings of "garden", "fruit", "tree of life", "tree of knowledge of good and evil", or even "Adam", etc. Trent D. Stephens et al consider other possible interpretations but they are only plausible if one discards the Smith/McConkie interpretations. Since the Church has been so stuck on Smith/McConkie we have continued to be "blinded" for another 50 years. Mind you, the whole Christian community has suffered from this same "blindness" to one degree or another. What I learn from this is that Church leaders can also have paradigm problems. This bothers me but I am makeing the mental adjustment. And I remind myself that even the life and mission of Jesus Christ was so bizarre when I think about it. After 4000 years here comes the Messiah and makes a fool of just about everybody. One thing I know, that it is almost impossible to know what to expect from God. Calling a prophet like Joseph Smith and bestowing the Book of Mormon seem par for the course. So how do I cope with such confusion? I try not to get excited. I don't sweat the small stuff. I try to be a "cool head" at church. I try to remember the first great commandment and the second one like unto it. I try not to let my confusion turn into angst. I recognize how good the church has been to me my whole life. I recognize that with all its imperfections I have never discovered a better church. I resist feelings of detaching myself because I don't see how that helps me or anyone else. When I am turned off by ignorant dogmatism in the Church, I remember what truely good people Mormons are. I am a Californian but I declare that no people are more friendly than Utah people--there must be a church connection. Just buying gas in Utah is a pleasurable experience. I get greeted with such cordiality and kindness it's almost funny. I think "by their fruits ye shall know them." I do not know of any interpretation of the creation story in any religion that satisfies me. But I love the subject and I do still believe there is a correct interpretation out there, and I loved Trent D. Stephens' book. p.s. Wasn't the Bible Dictionary in the LDS scriptures written by Bruce R. McConkie? No wonder his paradigm is hard for the church to shake.
Modified by fanpalm at Sun, May 25, 2003, 09:58:22
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/26/2003, 14:54:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Even if you throw out McConkie Doctrine you still have the Book of Mormon passages to deal with, particularly 2 Nephi 2:22-23:"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." It's not just Bruce R. McConkie. It's the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, even if you can blame Bruce R. for writing the Bible Dictionary, the church is still just as guilty because they publish it on their official website. The way I see it, either "Latter-day revelation supports the biblical account of the fall, showing that it was a historical event that literally occurred in the history of man" as the bible dictionary claims, or else the church that claims to be led and directed by God is way off and should not be trusted as a source of reliable, factual information. This is not to suggest that the church is not a force for good in many people's lives. But I think we need to rise above all the myths and fairy tales and just focus on the virtues taught. You say you have never found a better church. May I suggest Unitarian Universalism? They have no required doctrine or dogma, so you don't have to worry about being brainwashed with all kinds of silly ideas. No one is forced to believe a certain way. They just teach good morals, focusing on living a good life, without trying to make up myths to explain the unexplainable.
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/26/2003, 21:36:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks for the invite to Unitarian Universalism.I can deal with the Book of Mormon passages. I may not understand them but I don't think they have to be at odds with evolution. I am waiting for a better interpretation of the B of M passages you cited. As for the fallibility of the LDS leaders that "claim to be lead and directed by God", I regret that they see no better than Paul, "through a glass darkly." However, I believe that those same men are righteous, called through the restored priesthood, and I believe they will be sustained in the end by Him that called them. But I don't believe, like some LDS members, that priesthood leaders are super heroes. I believe, as a lot, they are very fine human beings who are anxiously engaged in doing good things. I think the original apostles and other early church members were no different. Obviously they were mere mortals too else they would have faired better. I wish "thinking Mormons" would not be so quick to leave the Church, but rather, use their noggins to better the Church from the inside.
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/27/2003, 05:00:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
I wish "thinking Mormons" would not be so quick to leave the Church, but rather, use their noggins to better the Church from the inside.The process of leaving actually took me many years. I used to hope that I could liberalize Mormonism from within, but the church really makes it impossible. Thinking Mormons are quick to leave because the church pushes them out. Intellectuals are not wanted or welcome. They are seen as an annoyance. Just ask Boyd K. Packer. Well Fanpalm, I really hope you continue to rise up through the ranks of Mormonism, become a G.A. someday and really make a difference. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors to "better the church from the inside." If you ever do make it to G.A. status, could you please have them take out that awful part in the bible dictionary that I cited?
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/27/2003, 11:18:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
I certainly do not aspire for position in the Church. Slowly but surely there are more and more "thinking Mormons" rising up in the Church. So what if Boyd K. Packer errs in some of his positions, overall he is still a great man even if some day he will eat a little crow. My own father is stuck in some old ways of thinking and we agree to disagree. I'm not about to abandon me ol' man. I was thinking this morning as I was jogging about your invitation to check out the Unitarian Church. I was thinking that that would not be acceptable for me now as my whole reason for participating in organized religion in the first place is to serve and connect with others (and to love my neighbor as myself). The LDS church still provides the best vehicle for service that I have found. I am a "tough guy" by nature both physically and intellectually. But I have tried hard my whole life,with moderate success, to mellow out and keep a finger on the pulse of my humility and pride. In spite of how smart I think I am, if I do not also have humility then I do not like myself. There are many good, sweet, humble people in the Mormon church who don't have a clue about deep doctrinal issues. I have the highest esteem for these humble people and will stay with them. I enjoyed the exchange on this board although I probably will not be a regular. My advice to you (if I can be so bold) is to keep your options open about coming back to the church and check yourself for pride. This is the same advice that I give myself. ciao.
|
Posted by: Christopher ®
05/27/2003, 17:30:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'd like to offer a differing perspective. I realize this may seem like a contrivance designed to rationalize my own departure from the faith. Chalk up one more ambiguity in the world.Regarding your comments:
"I wish 'thinking Mormons' would not be so quick to leave the Church, but rather, use their noggins to better the Church from the inside." and "My advice to you (if I can be so bold) is to keep your options open about coming back to the church and check yourself for pride." I'm not going to say that these are "wrong", just that there might be a greater perspective in which what a person chooses is less important than the fact that a person chooses, period.
Anyway, I believe that the act of "rising above" certain aspects of life can benefit anyone. What I mean by that is that by the time we enter the advanced stages of human development (let's say early adulthood but this is very general) we've already developed a large amount of assumptions. For instance, part of my struggle with Mormonism, and Christianity in general, was based on the premise that if there is a god, he must have one true church. Think about that premise--along with the conditional existence of god, it assumes all kinds of other things too: there is "a" god; God is a "he", "He" must only have one true church. Skipping the quantity and gender issues, why is it assumed that this god must only have "one true church"? Does that necessarily follow? It's not an uncommon assumption within Christianity, that's for sure. Since I was still holding on to the possibility of a god, I was stuck trying to identify the "one true church." (what assumptions do I make about the word "true"?) In this heavily variagated, mis-information-infused world, I've decided against such a rigid assumption. But that's only a personal example. The assumptions I see in the two comments of yours I put here include "The church is true" (the one true path) and closely related, "It's better for people to stay in the church, or to return to it." Going back to the evolution vs. Mormonism topic, it seems to me to be increasingly difficult for a Mormon to both acknowledge the findings of science and remain aligned with what the church leaders are putting forth. In other words, it's harder and harder not to be a heretic. So I say, be a heretic, to some degree, even if you feel in your heart that there is a baby in the bathwater. And just as a former Mormon such as myself might need to acknowledge that for some people an organized religion is right for them, so might active Mormons recognize that the opposite might be true for others. Chris
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/28/2003, 21:25:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
You'll get nuttin' but peace from me. I enjoyed your post.
|
Posted by: jdog ®
05/29/2003, 10:50:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
AMEN.Thats one of the best posts i've read.
p.s. you single? Jdog
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/26/2003, 01:44:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
The premise that there was no death before the fall must depend on the assumptions that either the plants that all animal life, including Adam and Eve, depended on for food were not truly living organisms or that they managed to consume the plants without killing them or that prior to the fall Adam and Eve and their animal companions did not have to eat food to live at all. None of these assumptions seem at all credible to me.Gunnar
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/26/2003, 13:02:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
I can't believe those ideas either. However, I still have faith that there is an interpretation to the creation story.One hypothesis is that the "tree of life" made one immortal and separation from that tree (being cast out of the garden)would allow normal death. And Adam was the First man just as Hillary was the First lady--First in preeminance (sp). It is frustrating to me to not solve this riddle but I vow not to follow in the footsteps of so many of my "thinking" brothers and sisters who, in my view, abandon the myths for nothing and settle into gloom. I could never be a true atheist because I think that life itself and the cosmos are evidence of intelligence and control greater than anything on earth. I will continue to "ponder in my heart" and try to endure to the end.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/26/2003, 14:19:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
I vow not to follow in the footsteps of so many of my "thinking" brothers and sisters who, in my view, abandon the myths for nothing and settle into gloom.I think you may be making an assumption that is unwarranted. Personally, I don't feel gloomy, and I don't feel that I have abandoned the myths for nothing. I feel hopeful. What has replaced the myths seems more exhilarating. Craig.
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/26/2003, 21:45:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
Quite right. I was generalizing. But it is my perception that many "thinking Mormons" that leave the Church, do so out of frustration, and are perplexed and irritated. I don't believe that the bulk of them find true peace or contentment after leaving. Rather, I think they retain their same disposition, only accentuated by age.I, myself, have felt the same frustration, perplexity, and irritation that I speak of. But I am not going to loose my nerve. I will hold my course the best I can and someday God, and Ricky Ricardo, will have some "splainin' tu du."
Modified by fanpalm at Mon, May 26, 2003, 22:11:27
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/26/2003, 15:16:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Rather, I rose above it. Like Craig, I don't feel a sense of gloom after leaving. I am happier than I have ever been, because I am finally being honest about my beliefs. I am also free to enjoy life for everything it has to offer, without the constraints of Mormonism to hold me back.I cannot speak for anyone else on this thread, but I am simply agnostic, not atheist. Just because I rejected Mormon theology doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility of some sort of higher power. And leaving the church doesn't mean you automatically sink into a life of "sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll." I still try to retain and live many of the values and morals I was raised on, such as love, compassion, and forgiveness. The only difference is now I do it for the sake of being a good person, not because of some expected divine consequences in the afterlife.
|
Posted by: fanpalm ®
05/26/2003, 21:57:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Good on ya, my brother.Hey, I'm also rising above it. But I'm staying on the inside. Inspite of all the inconsistencies in Mormonism that create such a stir in forums such as this, there are also many remarkable things in the Mormon scriptures that seem pretty miraculous. Why aren't forum members wracking their brains because of those things? When I think of how we all must make some kind of judgement regarding the Book of Mormon on Trial, I hope that we think better than those jurors on the O.J. trial--distracted by ancillary issues.
Modified by fanpalm at Mon, May 26, 2003, 22:15:50
|
Posted by: Christopher ®
05/27/2003, 17:35:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Amen to both phishhead and fanpalm. That is exactly what I was driving at in my long-winded post above!phishhead, it sounds like we have things in common. Chris
|
|
|
