DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
First a let me give people who may not have seen my other threads a quick summary of my situation: I am agnostic, my wife (of just over a year) is LDS, I usually go to church with her, and I've been curious about the church.
Next, I would like to apologize for brining this up again, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, it's just that this subject is a strong barrier in my acceptance of the gospel and so I figured it would be best to talk to members of the church about it. I've already talked to our Bishop about it, I have a lot of respect for him and enjoy talking with him, but he admittedly has little understanding of scientific principles.
Now I would like to present what is troubling me about joining the church:
-There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species.
-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.
-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.
The usual answer I get is that God does not reveal everything to us and that I should pray about the matter and it will be resolved. But this has yet to work for me, and I don't know if I could disregard a large amount of scientific evidence to believe something with no evidence. People tell me to have faith, but how can it be anything other the blind faith to believe in something that you've seen evidence to the contrary but never seen or felt evidence for?
I also worry that maybe I am just not cut out for religion in general, as other people don't seem to have problems with faith. I never gave my wife the expectation that I would convert, but I know she has the hope that I will and I feel like I'm letting her down since my brain can't seem to accept the church. It's getting to the point where I don't want to go to church with her anymore because I feel hypocritical since she teaches some of the primary kids and I usually sit in with her. I don't think the kids know that I'm not a member, I've never lied to them and said I'm a member but I've never told them I'm not a member as I think it might confuse them and bring up a lot of questions.
I don't know what kind of answers I'm looking for here or even if anyone will understand where I'm coming from. Maybe I just needed to get this all out in the open even if it is anonymously through a forum, but I do appreciate that many people of this forum have welcomed me and put up with my ramblings in a civil manner, I think it says a lot about the church.
-
To receive the truth concerning this planet's creation, it will require some thoughtful studying and lengthy sincere humble prayers. For the 'few,' an eye witness of the event is required for self-edification.
Today's science, as I tell my children, 'don't believe everything they claim as factual."
I would just like to point out that nothing in science claims to be "factual." It is based on observed and testable theories that advance our knowledge. If something claims to be absolute and unquestionable then it is not "science."
-
Hello DS:
I think you suffer from "west-tocitosis" like a dear friend of mine coined our short-sighted, naive and misinformed perspective of world. There is no such thing as an "universal sense of right and wrong." Just because you see a more or less "civilized" societies in the west and the appearance of law and order it does not mean that it is the norm but rather the exception.
In most of the world today, law, order and rules are ascertained based on mores and values, communal rules linked to survival and the threat of war. Safety and well being is a function of tribal affiliation, aggressive posturing and the means to inflict death or the fear of.
The ONLY reason the west is a bit better is because of the Judeo-Christian traditions and history. But we are 1000 years away from its origins so we can not see it. You are a product of the west and its mores and values, including a socially "impregnated" sense of moral behavior, which is nothing more than socially expected behavior that can be adjusted depending on your family history, educational level, socioeconomic status and the like. But it is not a universal concept. The natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the beginning.
For the non-believer there is no life after death so nothing to worry about. It is the one that knows but decides to ignore the "warning labels" for whatever reason the one that should be affraid. At the end of the road the anxiety creeps in and they then recognize that there is no other way but to turn to God for certainty. Although some remain defiant to the end. Go figure. For the believer faith is precisely the absence of fear. It is the affirmation of certainty since we know for SURE where we are going after this life on account of having lived our lives in accordance with the commandments of God, who is the ultimate judge and arbiter for the faithful and also the unfaithful.
I was not implying that you were not an upstanding citizen. On the contrary. Eloquent as your assertion is about you being a morally upright person, which again is in nowise in question, it is however naive. To say that it is a spontaneous expression of self (universal goodness) ignores most of the atrocities recorded in recent history. Again I have heard the argument before and it seems to me that ignoring/denying God but believing in goodness and an innate sense of right or wrong is like talking about wood furniture and refusing to talk about the forest.
Any thoughts?
I believe that people have a basic sense of right and wrong which is refined and enforced with laws and culture. Just because some places in the world are less "civilized", doesn't mean they have a different basic sense of right and wrong, they have simply justified their actions with necessity. Survival is obviously a stronger human imperitive than altruism, that doesn't mean altruism doesn't exist. Anyone who spends a few seconds pondering morality will realize that if everyone treated others how they would like to be treated the world would be a lot better place. The fact that our country is prosperous and that we don't have to worry about survival or impending invasions means that we are better able to focus on morality, it has little or nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian cultural start.
I would also like to clarify something. Believing that there is nothing after death is a belief, just like believing there is something after death. A "non-believer" doesn't have to subscribe to either of those. I admit that I have no idea what happens after I die, and I am OK with that. You say that faith is the absence of fear for a believer, but I tend to think it is more accurately the reliever of fear. Instead of having to deal with the concept of not knowing what happens, a believer puts their faith into a religion and then they no longer have to fear because they "know" what will happen.
I don't believe that my good behavior is a spontaneous expression of a universal concept of morality, but I do believe that it has nothing to do with my acceptance/rejecting of God. There are many factors that affect how moral a person is, but in my experience it has little or nothing to do with their religion (or lack there of).
-
I have heard DS's line of argumentation before. In the past, the particular person rather preferred to take such position because it freed her from any and all "moral conventions." As we all know, morality is God's idea of social and individual behavior. If one refuses to relate to any concept of deity we are free to do whatever we desire in order to ascertain happiness as long as it is not illegal.
I understand it may not be the current case but it may suit DS' agenda just the same. After all God demands sacrifice, faithfulness, hard work, and restrain (physical and emotionally). We are also encouraged to cultivate qualities that are seen as weaknesses: contentment, patient, humility, meekness, moderation, charity, community.
It would be REALLY interesting if DS would be able to explore really the core reasons for resisting acceptance of the existence of God. Every human civilization has sensed, in greater or lesser degree, the existence of forces greater and beyond their control or sphere of understanding. Still, he can not deny that he feels drawn into the experience. Of all places, here is DS reading, sharing, thinking, getting his feet wet in religion! Heck, I'd say he is neck-deep in religion and doctrine. Go figure.
We love you Digital and we certainly enjoy your company. I think atheism is a cover story for fear. Truth erases doubt and ambiguity. Truth also demands action. The fence-sitting status would be undoubtedly revoked.
What do you think?
I've also heard your line of thinking before, atheism->immorality. While I'm sure that there are some people who resist religion because of the moral responsibility, I assure you that I am not one of them and I think that anyone who knows me in real life would agree. People have a built in sense of what is right and what is wrong, it doesn't take scripture to realize that you should treat people how you want to be treated. I am a good person because it is the right thing to do, not because I fear punishment or want some reward after I die.
Also, the fact that every civilization had a concept of a higher power speaks more to the human desire for there to be one, it would only point to some universal truth if they all independently came up with the same God.
I find your last paragraph somewhat ironic because I have always felt that religion can be a cover story for fear, not atheism. People are afraid of not knowing what happens after they die, afraid of going to hell, afraid of what could happen to them with no one looking out for them. Religion provides a convenient security blanket for those people. I'm not saying this is the case for all religious people, just as not all atheists believe that way out of fear.
I thank you for your concern, but I'm not "resisting" the acceptance of God, I'm just failing to see evidence of any kind for it. I'm in search of the truth and I'm exploring the possibility of God because religion does a lot of good for a lot of people, including my wife. That is why I come here and ask these questions.
-
Dear Elphaba,
You are not correct. I am not "upset" in any way. Nor offended.
DS did not address anything that I wrote, and chose to discuss the meaning of a word instead. And that's perfectly fine.
I just wanted to clear up that I know the meaning of the word "atheist", and I will now add that I do not perceive it to be a word that reflects negatively on any person who would describe themselves as such.
As to all of the other people who live or have lived on this earth are and have been able to worship, or not, as they please/d. I certainly don't think I am "better" than someone who chooses/thinks/believes differently than I do. I don't know how I can prove that to you, except by telling you that I have friends/family of several different faiths and some who are atheists. I still love them and respect their choices, and you can believe me, or not. (I have all I can handle just trying to keep myself straight. I can't, nor would I want, to make their choices for them, too!)
Alaskagain
I didn't address the rest of what you wrote as it seemed dependent on a not entirely accurate definition of atheist. I'm sorry if I came off as a bit of a jerk, but I'm used to a lot of hostility and misunderstanding when I mention that I am an atheist. I (along with many other atheists) disagree with the dictionary definition of atheism as there is no "doctrine" for disbelief. It is implying that atheists disbelieve God with the same conviction that theists believe in god, which is entirely untrue in most cases. I simply don't believe that there is enough evidence to decide one way ior the other. I guess the closest dictionary definition to my beliefs would be "agnostic." I probably should have used that word instead for the sake of simplicity and I apologize.
I am praying in an attempt to find God, just as I've been instructed by missionaries and our Bishop. How else am I supposed to find the truth of the matter since there is no emperical evidence I can go on? I have a desire to know whether god exists (not just a desire to believe he exists), just as I have the desire to find the truth of any matter. But if you only have a desire to believe something exists untempered by questioning, wouldn't that just be blind faith instead of faith?
-
DS,
In your opening post, you stated you were not ‘religious’, and then later you state you are an atheist. They are two vastly different stances. One implies that you might believe in God, but do not adhere to the beliefs of any specific religious denomination. The other, of course, denies the existence of God.
As I see it, that is the root of your inability to feel that you have faith, and that you have received no answer to your prayers.
If you do not believe in God, why would you pray? If you do not believe in God, why would you pray and then expect to receive any kind of an answer?
If you are perfectly satisfied within yourself that God does not exist, you likely will not receive an answer confirming that He does indeed exist (according to me). My opinion, and I certainly don’t supersede God here, so I do leave open the possibility of a clear and direct answer to you.
If you do not believe in God, but have a desire to believe He exists, that in and of itself is an expression of faith. (Note that I did not say "If you do not believe in God, but have a desire to know whether He exists.")
If that is the case, and you have that desire, you are expressing faith. You are hoping that He does exist, after all. You may see no evidence of Him right now. But you have the hope. THAT is faith. Build on that little thread.
I commend you for supporting your LDS wife, and attending church with her, even though you do not believe as she does. That is love.
As far as all of the differences in religious beliefs across the world, I think yes, many times people declare their answers to prayers as truth, when in reality it has been "just their brain filling in the gaps and giving them what they want". People can justify or rationalize all manner of actions by saying "God tells me to do this." It doesn’t mean it is true, and it certainly doesn’t make bad things good.
I am not a scholar, scientist, or theologian. I hope I have not stated anything that offends.
I think that maybe you're misunderstanding the word atheist. It has a lot of negative connotations from religious folk so I don't blame you, but really it just literally means not-theist. This is exactly what I meant by not religious. I do not actively deny the possibility of god, I simply don't believe in any of the ones presented to me because there is no evidence.
I hope that clears some things up for you.
-
If anyone is curious about evidence that evolution is the origin of our species, just look up Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs). To me that is the most solid evidence. Essentially there is a class of virus (retrovirus) that embeds its own DNA into the cells it infects. Occasionally it will infect a sperm or egg cell that will then be fertilized and grow up. This animal now has the DNA of the retrovirus embedded in its own DNA and that will be reflected in all its children. It turns out that this happens rather often and around 8% of our DNA is comprised of these virus fragments. They are also the best known way of verifying lineage (over thousands of years) as they can only be transferred from parent to child. You can see that we share many of the same ERVs with chimpanzees as they are our closest relative and we have a common ancestor or there is no way that we would have the same ERVs.
I'm not saying that this is "proof" of evolution, but I have yet to hear a religious or scientific explaination that accounts for this besides evolution (I'm open to either). If all species were created directly by God, why would he reuse "junk DNA" with embedded viruses and all?
-
I didn't say that the very existence of Adam and Eve was allegorical. It is the creation "myth" found in Genesis that is allegorical. That some part of it is allegorical is indisputably true. How much of it is allegorical is debatable.
Now I'm somewhat confused again. If you accept that evolution was the origin of our species, then how can Adam and Eve be anything more than an allegory? Evolution is a slow process, it's not as if all of a sudden 2 humans would be born out of nowhere and converse with each other all alone.
-
Genesis has two differing creation accounts. Obviously both cannot be literally true. One or both have to be allegorical. In my opinion both are obviously allegorical. Scientifically, neither makes any sense, except as allegory.
I accept the scriptures as the true word of God. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the origin of the species. The Church's official position is that the origin of the species is not a crucial matter to our salvation and therefore has no other official opinion about it.
Besides which, a literal reading of the bible would place the age of man at about 6 or 7 thousand years. We know from the fossil record and other scientific disciplines that homo sapiens date from 150,000 BC, homo neanderthalenis (not our direct ancestor but cousins) date from 350,000 BC, while earlier hominids date from the millions BC.
Thank you for answering my question. The only thing that still doesn't make sense to me now is the significance of Adam and Eve. I do attend church most of the time with my wife and from what I've heard, Adam holds a special position. If the story of Adam and Eve was simply an allegory, wouldn't this conflict with some LDS teachings?
-
It's unclear what your point is but if your point is that the scriptures address evolution, you are mistaken. They do not.
While the scriptures don't specifically address evolution, they do provide an explanation of how life on earth began and many stories regarding the origin of our species. It's possible to accept that evolution happens while not conflicting with the scriptures, but accepting evolution as the likely origin of our species seems to directly conflict with Genesis. If we evolved, it was a slow progression to humanity and we didn't start as 2 humans directly created by god.
I asked this because it has been one of the main sticking points of me joining a Christian religion. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that not only supports evolution, but that evolution was the origin of every species on the planet, including humans. To me, this doesn't rule out the possibility of God, but it does rule out the possibility of the God described in the Old Testament. I was wondering how this is reconciled with LDS beliefs.
Are there any people here that belive evolution was the origin of our species and also hold all the scriptures as true? If so, how do you reconcile Genesis?
-
I'm sure the Church's official position can be found in Genesis chapter 1.
That is what I originally assumed, but there are many Mormons who do not dispute evolution. Since Genesis and evolution appear to be mutually exclusive theories, I was just asking for come clarification.
-
From what I've gathered so far, there are some in the church who are creationists and some who are not. Is there any official church position on the matter? It seems that if the theory of evolution were true, it would conflict with the Old Testament which is still part of the LDS belief system, is it not?
-
Again I wish I had more time to converse with you. There is both false faith and false religion just like there are false assumptions in science. For example are dinosaurs warm blooded or cold blooded. Today most scientists will agree that they are warm blooded – 50 years ago most agreed that they were cold blooded.
The problem is that many tend to have faith in “expert” opinion. Few of us have the time and resources to “check out” or validate everything that is being said. Since you are a scientist you will understand the following – I think. It is a template for understanding how G-d deals with man.
- G-d will not do for man what man is capable of doing for himself.
- G-d will do for man what man is not capable of doing for himself.
- G-d will not do for man that which does not benefit man in the long (eternal) term.
- G-d will do for man that which will benefit man in the long (eternal) term.
- G-d will not do anything for man with out the concurrence of that man.
As far as becoming enlightened – I have not found a better “path” to travel than what is offered in the LDS “faith”. If I could find something better; I would accept it in a heart beat.
If you have found better opportunity to participate in enlightening activities please point me. To be involved in community, serve in calling, experience love and compassion service. Consider the missionary program, you earn your own money and pay for your service. Welfare where all fast and offer what they save to the poor – and all regardless of what they have can participate with the same expectations and commitment to service – rich or poor. To take upon covenants – again all can help one another without attending special seminaries, or colleges to obtain degrees. One serving is not considered greater than another or deserving of greater reward. I could go on but I will ask you if you know of a better way to enlighten a society?
The Traveler
Scientific theories are assumptions that change with evidence. A widely accepted idea can be revised or even thrown out all together depending on what is observed, as you pointed out with your dinosaur example. But I think that faith is entirely different than scientific theory and can't be compared. Are your religious beliefs really as easily changed as your scientific ones?
Yes, I think that your church does a lot of good and it's build on soundly moral concepts, which is why I'm investigating it in the first place. However, I've also experienced intolerance and bigotry from many religions, including yours. You can say that these people are not acting in accordance with all your churches teachings, but if you're going to look at the good that a church has inspired, you must also look at the bad that it has inspired whether it was intentional or not.
As an atheist moving to Utah, I've faced a bit of intolerance. Most people are polite on the surface, some genuinely mean it, but others immediately assume that I am an immoral heathen simply because I'm not a member and treat me with disdain. I've met a lot of jerks and immoral people and in my experience, what religion they claim to be has nothing to do with it. Judging someone entirely by their stated religion not only seems wrong to me, but seems to go against their own religious philosophy.
I would also like to state that all of those good things you mention don't require religion. I enjoy helping other people, I don't do it because I expect to be rewarded in the afterlife, I do it because it is the right thing to do. In my experience, the religious people who do the most good, don't do it for their religion or the perceived rewards, they do it because they are inherently good people and would have done it anyway.
-
Thank you for responding. Back to the light and switch analogy. The point is that without knowledge of how the causes and effects apply to produce light by what ever means – people make assumptions. When you make an assumption that is another way of exercising faith. As a scientist I can vouch for fact that despite how often something seems to work; if the principles are not understood there is no scientific reason to make assumptions that trends will continue. There are only two means by which a person can act. One is by knowledge the other by assumption or faith. All that faith is – is the propensity to act without knowledge and make assumptions based on trends.
It is possible that people act in misguided faith – gambling is a good example of this. Anyone that understands statistics will not “gamble”, unless they act foolishly with misguided assumptions and faith.
Prayer is interesting to me. I find it odd that so many people pray without realizing they are approaching the most brilliant and intelligent mind in the universe, yet they would advise him on how to run things and answer according to their view of things. Yes, I agree that many people answer their own prayers or they un-answer their own prayers. What G-d is doing is allowing those that would learn from him to become enlightened. Contrary to popular opinion enlightenment is not the ability to spout doctrine, it is the means to become loving and compassionate – when loving and compassion are not logical.
I used the fact that you love your wife to make more than a logical point. If you only love when it is logical then those that you think you love will not have faith in you or your love.
The Traveler
First off, I'd like to thank you for your reply as well, it's nice to find a fellow scientist here.
My point with the analysis of your light analogy is that if you define faith that way (as the propensity to act without knowledge and make assumptions based on trends), then I don't see how it applies to religion. I assume that the light switch will turn on the light based on the trend that it almost always turns on the light (unless the light bulb is burnt out), I assume that a religion is true based on the trend ???. There are no direct action to result links that can be made in religion. The only testable conditions a religion provides all happen after you're dead.
I also disagree on your gambling point. I don't think people gamble because they have an ignorance of statistics (or common sense for that matter, casinos obviously make lots of money), I think they gamble because they get addicted to the rush they get when they win against the odds and make money off it. They don't have faith (or make an assumtion) that they will make money.
I think that a better example is religious fanatic terrorists who have faith that killing for their religion is the right thing to do and they will be rewarded for it. We can say how wrong and evil they are from our point of view, but we also had drastically different upbrinings. If you're raised from birth to believe something is true, chances are you will grow up to have an unshakable belief in it. This is supported by the fact that the majority of people are the same religion as their parents (obviously there are exceptions, I'm just observing the majority).
My point is simply that faith can be a dangerous thing and knowing where to place it (if anywhere) is a non-trivial matter to me. I hear people say how strong their faith is and that no matter what is discovered or what evidence comes to light, it would not shake their beliefs, but I don't think I can ever be like that. It seems unscientific to me. There are hunches that you can go on in science, but faced with overwhelming evidence opposing them, I don't see the value in blindly following my original hunch to the exclusion of everything else.
I do completely agree with you on prayer though and I wish more people saw it that way.
And to clarify, I do believe love goes beyond logic, but it is also something that requires two parties. I love my wife more than anything and she can see that in the things I do, just as I can see it in the things she does. My point is that I don't feel love from a higher power, no matter how much I try to give it. You can say that it's because I don't want it enough, just as I can say that you only feel it because you want it so much.
Sorry for the long post, but I really am enjoying this conversation :)
-
We don't know everything, nor are we supposed to know everything. Heavenly Father has revealed to us all that we need to be exalted. Once we're exalted we'll receive more answers than we ever dreamed existed. A person does not need to know all the answers to have faith. That's what faith is: believing things that you don't completely know. Heavenly Father doesn't give us knowledge and then say 'Now go have faith.' Faith brings us to knowledge, not the other way around.
I don't expect anyone to know everything. I also realize that a person does not need to know everything to have faith, but how do you know where to place your faith? Obviously there is something that you do know that caused the faith in the first place and that's what I'm trying to get at, since I seem to be missing that part.
Most people describe it as this overwhelming feeling and that they just "know" but I have never felt that and it confuses me that so many people just "know" these things, but obviously some of them are wrong since the things that they just "know" conflict with each other in many cases, so how can these overwhelming feelings be trusted?
-
DS, I'm not sure you will find the answer you are looking for here. I'm not sure you even know what answer you are looking for. Several people have tried to help you, to which you've responded with many "what if" questions. I think we're spinning our wheels here. If you don't know what you want then it's impossible for us to know what you want. I'd suggest taking the matter to the Lord and then being patient. The Lord doesn't answer our prayers when we want him to, but he does answer. Be patient, and good luck.
I appreciate all the people who are trying to help me and don't want to sound ungrateful, but I think my questions were straightforward and valid. If they lack clarity, I would be more than happy to clarify, but I would still like answers.
What I want is someone on the religious side who has also thought of these questions and maybe has answers or at least a little more insight into them because they are the same questions that prevent me from believing in a religion.
-
Sometimes when you overanalize {sp} you miss whats right in front of you. Take some time listen, read pray. All answers won't be found here. Debating is a great thing but sometimes we have to be quiet to hear the answers.
Blessings to you
I may be new to these forums, but I assure you that I have been pondering these concepts for well over a decade. I'm here because taking time, listening and praying have failed and I would like other people's input on the matter.
-
DigitalShadow, you obviously like to think a lot! Relax.
No need to ever get hung up on Truth with a big T, or any earth shattering sign. Belief is a matter of choice. Not everyone needs to believe, but there are definite benefits for those who choose to believe: Religion gives you comfort when you are old and frail and ministers to you when you are about to die. It helps mourn for you when you have lost a spouse or a child. It celebrates with you the momentous events in your life. It helps you survive adversity.
When you feel love for God, you can feel love in return and neither one can ever be quantified, for it in unnecessary: Love suffices.
:)
But what is religion if not the pursuit of the truth? I realize there are many benifets for believers, but that is irrelivant to the question of whether it is true or not. For me, finding the truth is more important than receiving possibly false comfort in times of need. When I face adversity, I look to myself and my own problem solving ability to get myself out of it.
I do appreciate all of the input and positive sentiment I've received so far. I don't mean to sound hostile, I'm just presenting everyone with arguments that my brain has presented to me in trying to rationalize this thing called religion.
-
Thanks everybody. I don't know what the ultimate answer is now. We have spoken about it and she knows that if it wasn't for her opposing it, I would have joined the Church a while ago. I will say that I think all the advice given is sound, and part of the reason I haven't joined the Church is because we both feel it's important to worship together. If I went to a different church than my wife and daughter, I do think it would put undo stress on our relationship. DigitalShadow, I have also been in the exact situation you are in now. My ex-wife (I'm divorced and remarried) was an atheist, and it was a struggle in our relationship. Granted we had other issues, but that didn't help the situation.
-Wayne
I think it is all a matter of openmindedness. I may not be a member of the church, but I go with my wife on sundays because it is important to her and I am honestly curious about her faith. I ask her questions and she asks me questions. Occasionally we have to agree to disagree but there's no reason that can't be civil. I've never asked her to do anything that goes against her faith and she's never asked me to do anything that goes against my personal beliefs. It's entirely possible for two rational people to come to two different conclusions.
-
I'm sure you're familiar with Joseph Smith. His manner of knowing which church to join. Obviously, commonfolk like myself probably won't have heavenly being appear to them, but we can use his method as an example.
First, Joseph and his family were religious. During the religious uprising which took place at that time, Joseph was able to visit and study different churches. He was as confused as you were. He wanted to be part of God's church, but didn't know how he could determine which one that was. Then, he came across a scripture in James (man, I feel like I'm on my mission again).
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." -- James 1:5-6
Joseph asked in faith and received his answer. You will receive an answer too, if you ask in faith. All the studying and asking people about their beliefs won't get you your answer. Only through faithful prayer to Heavenly Father and a confirmation of the Holy Ghost.
That is the answer I've been given a couple times, and I've tried to follow it with no luck yet. But what bothers me about that method is this: What if the church that is true, is one that I've never heard of? Of the billions of people on this earth, I would think that a significant percentage of them have asked this question in prayer honestly, yet I've never heard of someone being told by God to seek out a church they've never heard of in a country they've never been to. If anyone can honestly ask god what religion is true and get a straight answer of "Religion X is true" then why don't people from all over the world flock to one religion?
-
I believe faith is hope turned into action. In other words, anyone can hope the gospel is true, but only those with faith that it's true signify it by their actions. They live the gospel. They don't just sit back and hope. Faith and hope are closely related, but faith requires more effort. Hope is the beginnings of faith. Faith also involves knowledge, though not perfect or complete knowledge.
Okay I'm not making any sense, but anyway....
So faith is acting on the hope that the gospel is true? That makes sense in a way. However I'm still left wondering which gospel to choose to hope for in the first place. There are a lot of different churches, and plenty that I still don't even know about. Nearly all of them advise to have faith in either their gospel or their interpretation of it. If none of them give empirical evidence of the trueness of their church, how is one to pick a church?
-
Read Alma 32.
I did read it but I still can't seem to understand it. Defining faith as "hope for things which are not seen, which are true" does not make sense to me no matter how much I look at it. It seems that if something is true, you don't need to hope for it. If it's unseen, then either you believe it on faith because you "feel" that is right, or you don't believe it, where does hope come into this?
(I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I honestly want help understanding this)
-
I fundamentally do not care if you agree with me. As the scripture in Alma 32 so wonderfully explains, when we have faith we hope for things unseen. Hope implies an unsure knowledge, a quest for greater light. While my computer may have been built by knowledge, there had to first be faith that it could be built. Faith instills the pursuit of greater knowledge.
Faith is not required for the pursuit of greater knowledge, only curiousity. Wondering what else is possible is not faith and certainly not the same faith required to wholly believe in a religion. Faith does not imply hope for things unseen, it implies unquestioning belief in things unseen.
-
I'm in somewhat of the opposite situation right now. My wife is LDS and I would probably be considered atheist. I love my wife more than anything and support her in whatever she does, including going to church. While I may not agree with all her beliefs, it is her right to have them, just as I'm sure she doesn't agree with my beliefs but still respects that I have them.
I'm not sure if this helps or not, but I just wanted to let you know that it is entirely possible to disagree religiously, but still have an otherwise healthy and happy relationship. I wish you guys the best of luck.
I want to believe
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
As far as I know, men and women have the same number of ribs, I'm not sure where you heard that but I'm sure a quick trip to wikipedia will clear that up for you.
Also we can already create extremely simple forms of life on our own such as viruses and there's no reason to believe we couldn't eventually create more complicated forms of life from scratch with the proper technology.
There is also a significant amount of evidence that humans and other species have common ancestors as we share a lot of junk DNA embedded by viruses long ago that can only be passed from mother to child.