Anti-religion literature?

[Faithless]

Not to mention that we have SEVERAL creation stories that conflict with each other several times.... in the literal sense, all three can't be true (unless we somehow drag quantum superposition or possibly the 'many worlds' theory into the discussion, but let's not). Also- someone correct me if i'm wrong- I don't believe the Church has EVER provided a stance on evolution and has simply said something along the lines of "leave science up to the scientists"

The church's official stance is that evolution, for animals, is true, but they made no comment on human evolution.

[Faithless]

It's not a question of whether it's true or not. The LDS believe it is all true. However, they don't believe the Bible is perfectly translated and I happen to agree with that. A big one is the trinity. Many Christian faiths believe God the father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one physical being existing outside of time and space. When Christ said be one as my father and I are one, the lds believe he meant one in purpose. They believe they are all one in purpose but not one physically.

Can you name a specific example? I really doubt you're going to find a detailed description of everything the lds take literally in the Bible. I've asked the same thing before. I never found an answer to the question. Generally, I've found practically all lds believe things are literal like Moses parting the Red Sea. The question of was the Earth made in 6 days, I've heard a lot of lds say they believe it was in 6 periods of time but not 6 24 hour periods. You're going to have to give examples though of what you want clearer answers.

I guess I am asking about everything here. For example, in the story where Lot and his wife are leaving Sodom. Lot's wife looks back, and turns into a pillar of salt. Did she literally look back, and did she literally turn into a pillar of salt? Was there an actual arc? Was Jesus actually born of a virgin mother? Like you mentioned, did Moses really part the Red sea?

[Elphaba]

I also left the Church because I prayed as fervently, honestly, soulfully, broken-heartedly, and every other "ly," out there, as anyone possibly could, and received no answers. I've met quite a few others online over the years who received no response either. You're certainly not alone, though you're not going to get much support here. It is, after all, a LDS board.

You're also not going to find much respect for having read Dawkins, and his "ilk." I would note that the two people I've known in my personal life who used perjoratives like that about Dawkins turned out to not have actually read him. Also, when I finally read him I was shocked to see how even-handed he was, because I'd heard so many negative things, including how caustic he was. He wasn't any such thing. He just doesn't couch his words in niceties so as to make them palatable for those who disagree with him.

I think it's obvious why you were discouraged from reading him--what he says can cast doubt, and people within the Church feel very strongly about doing and saying things that encourage testimonies, not destroy them. I think that's perfectly reasonable, and see nothing wrong with it.

Elphaba

[Dravin]

The church's official stance is that evolution, for animals, is true, but they made no comment on human evolution.

Cite? I have never encountered the Church confirming evolution for animals.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Dravin

[Backroads]

To sum it all up, I guess I left the church because it wasn't fulfilling to me, and it didn't bring me the answers I was looking for. It didn't make me happy. It really did take me a long time to leave the church. Technically, my names are still in the records. I just haven't taken them out yet to make my mother happy.

Fair enough. I'm very much about having personal conviction.

I kind of like that you are trying to keep your mom happy. I know a lot of people have difficulty leaving churches because of family members--it seems most people want to keep the peace and maintain relationships. I really don't like the idea of lying to family members, and I also think a loss of respect for someone's spiritual beliefs is very bad for relationships.

[Mute]

I guess I am asking about everything here. For example, in the story where Lot and his wife are leaving Sodom. Lot's wife looks back, and turns into a pillar of salt. Did she literally look back, and did she literally turn into a pillar of salt? Was there an actual arc? Was Jesus actually born of a virgin mother? Like you mentioned, did Moses really part the Red sea?

Maybe the Joseph Smith translations would help for SOME of your questions regarding the lds faith's belief on what is to be taken literally or not in the scriptures. It's been roughly 7 years since I've read the Bible and to be honest I never even read the Joseph Smith translations when I read the Bible. I really don't think you're going to ever find anything clarifying all of these questions that would be considered an official lds belief and not just an individuals interpretation/opinion. I've always understood it in church when I learned about Lot's wife turning into salt that it was to be taken literally as well as Christ being born of a virgin and Moses parting the Red Sea. Either way, the Joseph Smith translation is my best guess for you possibly being able to find some of the answers you seek. You may find nothing though but it's worth a shot.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Mute

[Mute]

I mainly left because I felt like this faith wasn't what I wanted. If anything, it just didn't feel right. I used to go to church every week, go to seminary every school day, and follow the church's teaching. But then I started questioning things. I started asking myself why I believed in god, but couldn't come up with a legit answer. All I could think of was faith, and because everything in the world looked like it was designed by him. Everything seemed to fit together so perfectly. But, I knew then about evolution and science, which was and still is a passion of mine. For me it wasn't a leaving of the LDS faith, it was a leaving of religion in general. I looked at religion in a skeptical point of view, and it all seemed so fake to me. Even the translation of the Book of Mormon seemed like it was a scam. I already don't believe in psychics, homeopathic medicine, or chi. I look at those things and need proof of why they are true. All they can do is use human emotion to try and prove they are real, but they show no evidence. I decided I would use skeptical thinking for pretty much everything in life. To me, there was no evidence for a god. The things that people used for evidence for a god were pretty much all explainable by science.

To sum it all up, I guess I left the church because it wasn't fulfilling to me, and it didn't bring me the answers I was looking for. It didn't make me happy. It really did take me a long time to leave the church. Technically, my names are still in the records. I just haven't taken them out yet to make my mother happy.

This helps to explain why you left the lds faith but I'm still curious about the previous statement.

This is actually one of the many reasons I left the church. I had a Sunday school class dedicated to saying why evolution is false, and how we should all not believe in it. It really bothered me that someone who was supposed to be teaching me lessons of life was attempting (might I add poorly) to prove why a scientific theory was false.

I'm just trying to understand the reason that teacher was a reason that contributed to you leaving. I'm not trying to judge you or say that shouldn't be a reason for leaving. Your reasons are your own. It's just not an answer I've usually heard for a reason that would make you doubt, question, or not believe the lds faith was true. From the impression I'm getting, it sounds like you're saying that it just annoyed you but wasn't a reason for you not believing in the lds faith but rather just a reason that contributed to you wanting to leave it. Is that a right assumption?

[rameumptom]

Ok, at the risk of striking up an argument of some kind, what is it that the LDS faith believes about the Bible? What parts of it does it take literally, and what parts does it take symbolically? If you read the bible, and you happen upon a certain story, how do you know what to believe about it is true, and what isn't?

The LDS Church has few actual doctrines, though a variety of teachings. We leave to the membership to decide how much of the Bible they wish to believe to be literal vs symbolic. For me, I do not have to decide one way or the other. If I do not have enough evidence to tell me something is historically correct, then I must assume that it may be partially correct, a construct made up from several historical events, or wholly symbolic. I do not use the Bible as a history book, because that is not what it is. Although it does contain verifiable historic accounts, its purpose is to teach us about the relationship between God and man.

It doesn't matter to me if the Flood is historical or not. It doesn't matter to me whether the earth is 6000 years, 4.5 billion years or 3 minutes in length. That is not what I go to the Bible for.

My belief is in learning from it concerning spiritual things. I am guided by my learning, experience, and the Holy Ghost.

As for "proof", there is no such thing as scientific proof in spiritual things. Doesn't work that way. There are evidence, and some of it can be scientific in nature (such as the location of Nahom in the Book of Mormon). However, even with such evidences, it does not prove the spiritual components of the scriptures. We could find archaeological evidence of Moses' existence, but that would not prove that he saw God on Sinai nor parted the Red Sea.

There will always be a faith component involved. The question is: how skeptical are we going to be regarding the evidences that do exist?

[pam]

I'm with Ram pretty much. Honestly I don't care if stories are literal or allegorical. I don't care if the flood covered the entire earth or just a portion. I don't care if a donkey could talk or not. The important thing is the lesson that can be learned whether it really happened or is allegorical.

[Mute]

I want a talking donkey. How cool would that be if it were like the donkey from Shrek? A donkey that sings songs, fights dragons, saves princesses from tall towers and sometimes flies. If it is to be taken literally and did indeed happen, I wonder if it sounded at all like Eddie Murphy. That would be awesome! And just like in Shrek the donkey saved the main character's life by giving perfect advice.

[Dravin]

I want a talking donkey. How cool would that be if it were like the donkey from Shrek? A donkey that sings songs, fights dragons, saves princesses from tall towers and sometimes flies. If it is to be taken literally and did indeed happen, I wonder if it sounded at all like Eddie Murphy. That would be awesome! And just like in Shrek the donkey saved the main character's life by giving perfect advice.

/me tries to picture Eddie Murphy speaking an ancient Middle Eastern Language.

[Faithless]

Cite? I have never encountered the Church confirming evolution for animals.

Oops, I'm wrong on that. Sorry. In the evolution thread by Tyler90Az some people were saying how some prophets believed in evolution, but it was never confirmed. I do not know the church's official, current view on evolution. Sorry for the mess up.

[Faithless]

Fair enough. I'm very much about having personal conviction.

I kind of like that you are trying to keep your mom happy. I know a lot of people have difficulty leaving churches because of family members--it seems most people want to keep the peace and maintain relationships. I really don't like the idea of lying to family members, and I also think a loss of respect for someone's spiritual beliefs is very bad for relationships.

Thank you. I am, however, thinking of taking my name out without telling my mom, and asking the bishop to not inform her of it. Either that or I wait till I move. And, in all honesty, if she finds out, it won't be that big of a deal. She's not going to blow up at me, she just might be saddened at being reminded of my beliefs.

[Faithless]

This helps to explain why you left the lds faith but I'm still curious about the previous statement.

I'm just trying to understand the reason that teacher was a reason that contributed to you leaving. I'm not trying to judge you or say that shouldn't be a reason for leaving. Your reasons are your own. It's just not an answer I've usually heard for a reason that would make you doubt, question, or not believe the lds faith was true. From the impression I'm getting, it sounds like you're saying that it just annoyed you but wasn't a reason for you not believing in the lds faith but rather just a reason that contributed to you wanting to leave it. Is that a right assumption?

Well, it was my belief that the people who were teaching me as a child the faith that was to help me through my life were telling me things that were written in a manual by an inspired man/woman of god. However, any of the lessons I have paid attention to could have been made up on the spot, and I would not have known it. I know it's a stupid thing to believe, but I did at one time think that all of the lessons would be perfect, and that everything that came out of a priesthood holders mouth was law. Now I don't believe that, but having that crash don upon me just helped me leave the church.

[Faithless]

The LDS Church has few actual doctrines, though a variety of teachings. We leave to the membership to decide how much of the Bible they wish to believe to be literal vs symbolic. For me, I do not have to decide one way or the other. If I do not have enough evidence to tell me something is historically correct, then I must assume that it may be partially correct, a construct made up from several historical events, or wholly symbolic. I do not use the Bible as a history book, because that is not what it is. Although it does contain verifiable historic accounts, its purpose is to teach us about the relationship between God and man.

It doesn't matter to me if the Flood is historical or not. It doesn't matter to me whether the earth is 6000 years, 4.5 billion years or 3 minutes in length. That is not what I go to the Bible for.

My belief is in learning from it concerning spiritual things. I am guided by my learning, experience, and the Holy Ghost.

As for "proof", there is no such thing as scientific proof in spiritual things. Doesn't work that way. There are evidence, and some of it can be scientific in nature (such as the location of Nahom in the Book of Mormon). However, even with such evidences, it does not prove the spiritual components of the scriptures. We could find archaeological evidence of Moses' existence, but that would not prove that he saw God on Sinai nor parted the Red Sea.

There will always be a faith component involved. The question is: how skeptical are we going to be regarding the evidences that do exist?

Thanks Mute and Ram. That summed up my question.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

The LDS Church has few actual doctrines, though a variety of teachings. We leave to the membership to decide how much of the Bible they wish to believe to be literal vs symbolic. For me, I do not have to decide one way or the other. If I do not have enough evidence to tell me something is historically correct, then I must assume that it may be partially correct, a construct made up from several historical events, or wholly symbolic. I do not use the Bible as a history book, because that is not what it is. Although it does contain verifiable historic accounts, its purpose is to teach us about the relationship between God and man.

It doesn't matter to me if the Flood is historical or not. It doesn't matter to me whether the earth is 6000 years, 4.5 billion years or 3 minutes in length. That is not what I go to the Bible for.

My belief is in learning from it concerning spiritual things. I am guided by my learning, experience, and the Holy Ghost.

As for "proof", there is no such thing as scientific proof in spiritual things. Doesn't work that way. There are evidence, and some of it can be scientific in nature (such as the location of Nahom in the Book of Mormon). However, even with such evidences, it does not prove the spiritual components of the scriptures. We could find archaeological evidence of Moses' existence, but that would not prove that he saw God on Sinai nor parted the Red Sea.

There will always be a faith component involved. The question is: how skeptical are we going to be regarding the evidences that do exist?

I agree with that take. I have my own reasons for believing certain parts of the Bible are literal accounts and others allegorical. For instance, I do believe the earth is about 6500 years old which would cause some people to label me as a literalist....until they find out that I don't believe that Job actually existed. My reasoning is simple. Job is written as an allegory, a play to be acted out on stage, and Genesis is written as a porqua. It's unfortunate that Christians are pressured to turn off their brains when reading the Bible and allow themselves to be mindlessly subsumed into a school of interpretation.

[Blackmarch]

I agree with that take. I have my own reasons for believing certain parts of the Bible are literal accounts and others allegorical. For instance, I do believe the earth is about 6500 years old which would cause some people to label me as a literalist....until they find out that I don't believe that Job actually existed. My reasoning is simple. Job is written as an allegory, a play to be acted out on stage, and Genesis is written as a porqua. It's unfortunate that Christians are pressured to turn off their brains when reading the Bible and allow themselves to be mindlessly subsumed into a school of interpretation.

no joke. >.<

and by more than just some christians too.