Honest searching - please help

[lilered]

In my view, I believe that one can have a strong belief in God and yet not belong to any religion. Similiarly, one can believe in Jesus Chist as their personal savior, and not belong to a religious group.

Based on the above premise, one can then begin to search out more information with which to gain knowledge. Then with quiet time and prayerful pondering, we seek to develop information into knowledge. Then this mature knowledge becomes wisdom, We then become stronger in our beliefs.

We are also promised that the Holy Spirit will testify of the truthfulness of the Gospel.

We are promised in the Doctrine and Covenants: “If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge.

The Savior promised if we want to know whether his doctrine is true and comes from the Father, we must “do his will.” Then, he promised, we “shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17.)

This is like the scientific method—simply judging on the basis of the data.

So, one question I have, would be have you indeed put the above to the test?

If I understand your dilema, you are having difficulty reconciling the differences between the Scientific Community and Religion.

Science draws conclusion based on certain available data but in all honesty, there is always going to be some disharmony between the two. You mention Buddism in your thread, and yet the traditional belief of Western Religious culture was/is always, that the order of nature is subject to God, who created that order in the first place, who sustains it, and who can alter it according to his own will.

Bottom Line: Your choices: Disavow God, Accept God, or Accept the fact that there are differences between the Science community and any Christian Religion. If you should choose to "Accept God", then it would behoove you to study the scriptures with full intent etc. to understand and gain knowledge and to know of their truthfulness as testified by the still small voice.

[Mobius]

Unfortunately it seems as though some of the people here don't really understand their own doctrine. So many of you seem to have no problem with the concept of evolution. The LDS church clearly teaches that God created man and woman and that before the fall the Earth and everything in it was in a Paradisiacal state - this means no death, no degeneration, no evolution. I don't care if a day is 24 hours or 1 million years, if nothing dies nothing evolves. The fossil record, carbon dating, etc. show that. Is the assumption that there were people before Adam with no spirits? That just seems really silly since the LDS church teaches that the spirit gives life to the body.

I suppose this thread has gotten off-topic and is probably not useful for anyone at this point, so I'll just say thanks to everyone who helped. I genuinely love and respect each of your opinions. I also love that as human beings we can discuss and debate like this, disagree and still feel that inner divine connection. Thanks!

[Misshalfway]

The reason I still argue the point is because the future of my family rides on the answer (as was mentioned in my earlier posts, which I why I keep circling around this). If the answer is what I received, then what? Should I just say "Ok, well god told me the LDS church is not true, let's start working out visitation rights, alimony, etc."? It's a little more complicated than you make it seem. Have you ever had a spiritual decision that had such drastic consequences? Would you really just give up your spouse, children, family and friends so easily? If you can you're a much better person than I am, and you have my respect.

To answer your second question, you can have spiritual impressions and not believe in God. This is a misunderstanding of most Western religions. The entire teachings of Buddhism and many Eastern theologies are based on this. It is more about connecting with the divine within yourself rather than looking to an outside authority for validation, approval or confirmation. The downside with this is, as we see, there is no one god controlling everyone leading them to one truth. Truth resides in yourself, for yourself (it's the awareness behind the thoughts and emotions you mentioned in one of your posts).

I see your plight. Thank you for explaining your situation in better detail. It helps me to understand you and your struggle better. Again, I hope you will forgive my candor and forgive also if I have challenged you or questioned you in a way that perhaps doesn't take into account all of your circumstances.

It sounds like you are pretty sure that your wife and friends will reject you if you choose a different course. I can understand how daunting that prospect might be. And yes, for the record, I have been led to do things that threatened my marriage and did eventually lose me my friendships. My decisions and the spirit that led me to act, did take courage and did cost me greatly. But I wouldn't trade my course. I am not sharing that with you to suggest you leave your marriage. Please do not misunderstand. It just means that I can indeed empathize with your situation. I think many who decide to be baptized into this church struggle with the exact same sitauation. So I share in a supportive spirit and I hope you can feel that.

And so let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You have been raised LDS. You disagree with it. You don't think it is "right" or "true" church and you wish that you had the social and familial freedom to leave it. But because you love your wife and your kids and your LDS friends, you are willing to look at the church again and consider its authenticity because it means so much to them. Am I anywhere close??

Is there any part of of you that considers that perhaps it might be true? Or is that notion completely off the table? I was also wondering.... If you could reconcile science and the gospel of Christ, what would then hold your back from embracing it?

To answer your second question, you can have spiritual impressions and not believe in God. This is a misunderstanding of most Western religions.

I don't see this as a misunderstanding of Western religion. I simply see it as a philosophical difference. If you believe that, then I am glad to understand you better. My experience and intuition tells me that any spiritual communication must come from a source. And that source is what I understand to be God. You may not agree. But that is ok. Hopefully that won't get in the way of good dialogue.

[lilered]

The LDS church clearly teaches that God created man and woman and that before the fall the Earth and everything in it was in a Paradisiacal state - this means no death, no degeneration, no evolution. I don't care if a day is 24 hours or 1 million years, if nothing dies nothing evolves.

Your ascertain concerning the earth was created in a Paradisiacal State is correct according to LDS theology. I am not sure though any Christian Religion can provide the explanation that you are seeking. Faith does come into the picture sooner or later for all professing to be Christians.

[WillowTheWhisp]

May I just say something about the 'theory of evolution' - that's exactly what it is, a theory. There is no factual documentation that backs up the notion that mankind evolved from any kind of ape. If evolution were a fact why are there not evolving species now on earth?

[MobyMule]

Unfortunately it seems as though some of the people here don't really understand their own doctrine. So many of you seem to have no problem with the concept of evolution. The LDS church clearly teaches that God created man and woman and that before the fall the Earth and everything in it was in a Paradisiacal state - this means no death, no degeneration, no evolution. I don't care if a day is 24 hours or 1 million years, if nothing dies nothing evolves. The fossil record, carbon dating, etc. show that. Is the assumption that there were people before Adam with no spirits? That just seems really silly since the LDS church teaches that the spirit gives life to the body.

I suppose this thread has gotten off-topic and is probably not useful for anyone at this point, so I'll just say thanks to everyone who helped. I genuinely love and respect each of your opinions. I also love that as human beings we can discuss and debate like this, disagree and still feel that inner divine connection. Thanks!

I agree with you but you have to remember the Earth was not in paradiscal state untill God said the work was finished and Man was created. I probably misspoke myself about man without spirits. Man with the spirits of the children of God in them. And really there is no way to know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden in that state. It may not have been a very long time at all.

There is so much that is not known and will not be known. Specifis like that will not be known untill after the final judgement. Some will be known after Christ comes again.

The big part of the plan of salvation is the basics. Repetance, Faith, Baptism and The gift of the Holy Ghost. I know some people feel the have to know and it must make sense in their own mind but that will never happen in this life. There will always be unknowns no matter how much we think we know or actually do know.

All of the theorizing is interesting but to me it has no bearing on salvation. Salvation is basic and so is exaltation tbh. It is just really being happy and trusting in the Lord. You do that and peace will come to your soul imho.

I am no great scriptorian or theologian. I am a southern babtist turned LDS country boy who knows that God knows what I have experienced and felt in my heart. I do my best to remember that and just be happy and live my life to serve Him and others.

[utcowboy]

I agree with Willow, except let me clarify one smal point.... All species on the earth at this time are evolving, but where is the species in between man and apes?? Wouldn't there still be some??? The Apes are still here, fish are still here, amebia are still on the earth. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I would honestly like some answers too. Evolution happens, but I don't think that man came from apes and I honestly don't think science is perfect therefore the answers we get from our tests are not perfect or completely correct.

[Dale]

I have been studying the issue of Evolution and the creation account. I do not see the story as contradictory to evolution as i did a few days ago. Remember as you read Genisis that the Biblical writer had no conception of planet earth. So when words like earth, or ground are used it referred to a localized land called earth.(Genisis 2:5-7) So Adam was the first man in what he knew as earth. It really does not preclude other lands called earth from having pre-Adamite man on it before. Joseph Smith Jr, sometimes in the Joseph Smith translation used the term earth to mean planet earth, or localized earth in a mixing sort of way.

Genisis 2:5 can be misread as saying it never rained on planet earth. What it means is that it had not rained in the location they called earth. It is not a denial that it rained elsewhere on planet earth, but just not on that drier geographic location.

Eve would be the mother pf all living of the Adamic kind. (Genisis 3:20) I think Paul wotked from a more expanded meaning of world than the Genisis writer. So Adam got blamed for all physical death not just the Adamic kind. (1 Cor.16:21) But the fall i guess worked backwards so they and we need a universal salvation.

Adam still fell that men might be just only men of his line.

[Moksha]

Does anyone out there know of any good forums in which spirituality and belief can be discussed openly and honestly without being labelled "anti," "apologist," etc. and questions can be answered with something more substantial than "have faith" "that's the way my god made things, so there's no reason to question."?

Thanks!

Give it a try here and if unsuccessful, try the LDS forum on Beliefnet. Good luck with your quest for answers and perhaps a serendipitous affirmation.

[Moksha]

Mobius: From what I can see Buddhism appears to be the "religion" most closely aligned to what we actually observe in real life.

There is much we as Mormons can benefit from the wisdom of the Buddha. The wisdom of the Four Noble Truths has certainly helped me.

Mobius: I am leaning toward a universal approach in which people are intelligent enough to realize that religion is merely an organized construct to help people achieve spirituality. Religion is primarily based on culture, upbringing and personality and different religions (or even no religion at all) will resonate more with different people.

Yes, we are all engaged in our own spiritual dance seeking our own pathway to the Divine. Nothing wrong with that. Finding what resonates with you and incorporating it into your being is satisfying.

Mobius: And, this is my "core problem" with the LDS faith - that it claims to be THE true religion and bases that primarily on emotion

Nothing wrong with warm fuzzies. I think they have backed off the exclusive truth claim and now say we just have more truth. Could you not just accept this as an eccentricity?

Mobius: so it just makes me wonder how many people don't actually "know" the church is true, but just know that it's a good way to live.

Looking for Truth with a big T? We are all making a leap of faith.

Mobius: Truth resides in yourself, for yourself (it's the awareness behind the thoughts and emotions you mentioned in one of your posts

Excellent point. I suspect one of the truths you hold is the importance of your family over the need to extract the intellectual exactness of every particle of the Mormon experience. Perhaps you should start afresh and look for those points of truth, whether literal or symbolic in the Church and add to that whatever other bits of wisdom you would like to add. Perhaps that will enable you to be content for the sake of your family stability. :)

[Dale]

Unfortunately it seems as though some of the people here don't really understand their own doctrine. So many of you seem to have no problem with the concept of evolution. The LDS church clearly teaches that God created man and woman and that before the fall the Earth and everything in it was in a Paradisiacal state - this means no death, no degeneration, no evolution. I don't care if a day is 24 hours or 1 million years, if nothing dies nothing evolves. The fossil record, carbon dating, etc. show that. Is the assumption that there were people before Adam with no spirits? That just seems really silly since the LDS church teaches that the spirit gives life to the body.

I suppose this thread has gotten off-topic and is probably not useful for anyone at this point, so I'll just say thanks to everyone who helped. I genuinely love and respect each of your opinions. I also love that as human beings we can discuss and debate like this, disagree and still feel that inner divine connection. Thanks!

The LDS teaches several things. It has allowed since evolution became a hot topic several views on the issue. It has not mandated that people agree with its orthodoxy. But i encourage you to remain here and not end your participation in the discussion. FAIR has a Topical Guide with Science section with stuff on Evolution.

Todai i got from Amazon a book entitled Evolution And Mormonism A Quest for Understanding by Trent D. Stephens and D. Jefferey Meldrum. This reading that the earth was paradisical is because the Book of Mormon was misread. The idea nothing died is not supported by a more careful reading of the scriptures. Read Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA talk by Trent D. Stephens.

Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA

Adam and Eve had to partake of the tree of life regularly to live. As soon as they stopped eating from it they became mortal. He provides in his talk evidence things died in the garden. The fruit no doubt they ate died.

I am not LDS but a member of the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). Spencer W. Kimball an LDS Church President of many years ago taught the Adam and the rib cage story was metaphorical. Brigham Young had called the story of Adam and Eve being created in the garden a baby story. LDS leaders views on creation are more broad than i used to think.

I think this discussion is very useful. So i encourage you to continue to participate in it. I will PM you.

[SanctitasDeo]

I think that if evolution disagreed so much with LDS theology, BYU, the church's private university, would not have taught me about it in my science class last semester.

[Dale]

Here are links to three articles I am studying.

Was Adam The First Man

Was Adam The First Man

Was Adam the First man on earth? An Analysis of an Argument Against Pre-Adamic Men & Races

Was Adam the First man?

Was There Death Before Adam Fell?

Was There Death Before Adam Fell? - Come Reason Ministries

I did not look all around the websites to look for content. But i found the articles seemed to present the basic scriptural views. So i printed off copies to study.

[prisonchaplain]

Does anyone out there know of any good forums in which spirituality and belief can be discussed openly and honestly without being labelled "anti," "apologist," etc. and questions can be answered with something more substantial than "have faith" "that's the way my god made things, so there's no reason to question."?

Thanks!

As a non-LDS moderator, my biased opinion is that LDSNet is about as good as it gets for the discussion you seek. Yes, this is a pro-LDS site. However, respectful dialogue is welcomed here. I've had less than a half-dozen uncomfortable discussions here in my two and a half years, and I've never pretended to be anything other than a pentecostal preacher.

Sometimes "ex's" or "inactives" get a certain level of "come home!" pleas. Just look past it, and ask your questions genuinely and openly. Look past those answers you consider platitudes, and you'll likely find some useful thoughts. And, don't be in a hurry, and don't be afraid to make some friends along the way.

[rameumptom]

So, Mobius, what are some of your concerns we can discuss.

LDS Scholar Terryl Givens gave a great talk at the Joseph Smith Symposium at the Library of Congress in 2005. He explained that while most religions are based upon creeds which bind them, the LDS religion is relatively open. We have a small list of core doctrines, upon which principles and teachings are based. But we also believe in continual revelation, so that our current understand can be expanded or corrected on any issue in the future.

While some Church leaders have been strong supporters of Creationism of some sort, others have had an open mind concerning evolution. Even Joseph Smith accepted the Jewish concept that the earth was 3.555 billion years old, although Elder Bruce R. McConkie tried to make it sound like the entire universe was that age, and no more.

The key is, there is an open discussion. Yes, there are some members that are adamant about a 6000 year old earth. But there are many that understand that the Bible was written by people that presumed certain things. The benefit of Joseph Smith's writings, is we can peer into the mind of a recent prophet, and find that assumptions actually occur on occasions. Translating the BoM, Joseph once paused and said, "I didn't know Jerusalem was a walled city." Even prophets learn and try to have the scriptures understandable from their world view. From the standpoint of Adam, he WAS the only person on the earth, where he was.

So, there are ways to combine Adam as first man and evolution of some form together. Given we don't have all the answers on this, even the Church has officially proclaimed that there is no official stand on evolution.

[MobyMule]

So, Mobius, what are some of your concerns we can discuss.

LDS Scholar Terryl Givens gave a great talk at the Joseph Smith Symposium at the Library of Congress in 2005. He explained that while most religions are based upon creeds which bind them, the LDS religion is relatively open. We have a small list of core doctrines, upon which principles and teachings are based. But we also believe in continual revelation, so that our current understand can be expanded or corrected on any issue in the future.

While some Church leaders have been strong supporters of Creationism of some sort, others have had an open mind concerning evolution. Even Joseph Smith accepted the Jewish concept that the earth was 3.555 billion years old, although Elder Bruce R. McConkie tried to make it sound like the entire universe was that age, and no more.

The key is, there is an open discussion. Yes, there are some members that are adamant about a 6000 year old earth. But there are many that understand that the Bible was written by people that presumed certain things. The benefit of Joseph Smith's writings, is we can peer into the mind of a recent prophet, and find that assumptions actually occur on occasions. Translating the BoM, Joseph once paused and said, "I didn't know Jerusalem was a walled city." Even prophets learn and try to have the scriptures understandable from their world view. From the standpoint of Adam, he WAS the only person on the earth, where he was.

So, there are ways to combine Adam as first man and evolution of some form together. Given we don't have all the answers on this, even the Church has officially proclaimed that there is no official stand on evolution.

Very well put. I find the alot of times it is easy to confuse opinions and beliefs of members(even general authorities) with actual doctrine. I believe even apostles and prophets can interject opinion every once and while. I believe that is why we are taught to study the scriptures on our own and pray about what we are told.

[Traveler]

MobyMule, are you a member of the core LDS church? I am pretty sure that evolution is not taught in any form (unless you consider becoming a god evolving : )) and that it teaches literal interpretation of the Bible. Don't believe me? Try bearing your testimony next month about how strongly the Spirit has testified to you that man evolved from primates in Africa and see how quickly you get called for a Bishop's interview! Pretty much everything in LDS doctrine that I know of contradicts what you said.

As a scientist I would be as concerned with you testimony of spiritual resolutions to evolution. I believe in evolution and can prove evolution as the basis for all life but I also recognize that there are questions to which evolution has no answers. Yet we scientist accept evolution despite its flaws on faith that at some point we will be able to work out the current un-answered questions. This is because evolution is the best overall answer we have so far. We do not throw out evolution because we can find one thing or one question it does not answer. These same principles apply to almost all aspects of science. Gravity does not explain all aspects of attractions of masses; electro-magnetic principles do not explain all aspects of observable current and magnetic activity; the Big Bang does not explain the amount of mass and energy in the known universe.

I can criticize a great deal in science with question of why were some dinosaurs and insects too large to live on an earth with the mass of the one we live on. Why can’t anyone come up with a universal field theory – because one cannot exist? If the existence of doubt of anything is a reason to not accept it as you seem to apply to religion then science could not exist and man’s thinking could never advance.

The basis of intelligence is not just to be critical. It is to utilize what you can and not to discount any idea unless you have a better one. If someone wants to disregard gravity, I would only regard their opinion only if they had something better to offer – to me this is the very basis of reason.

I will recommend a book for you. It is titled “The Marriage of Sense and Soul” and sub titled “Integrating Science and Religion” by Ken Wilber. I am a scientist and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Ken is not a scientist or LDS (he is Buddhist and a philosopher). One point he makes is that one must apply the principles that can be used to any endeavor of discovery. For example, one cannot use a volt meter to measure gravity. Not all things can be measured with “scientific tools”. I do not believe that love can be scientifically measured and quantified. It does not mean that love has no merit – only that such an attempt to “experience” love by scientific method may not be the best possible method.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Unfortunately it seems as though some of the people here don't really understand their own doctrine. So many of you seem to have no problem with the concept of evolution. The LDS church clearly teaches that God created man and woman and that before the fall the Earth and everything in it was in a Paradisiacal state - this means no death, no degeneration, no evolution. I don't care if a day is 24 hours or 1 million years, if nothing dies nothing evolves. The fossil record, carbon dating, etc. show that. Is the assumption that there were people before Adam with no spirits? That just seems really silly since the LDS church teaches that the spirit gives life to the body.

I suppose this thread has gotten off-topic and is probably not useful for anyone at this point, so I'll just say thanks to everyone who helped. I genuinely love and respect each of your opinions. I also love that as human beings we can discuss and debate like this, disagree and still feel that inner divine connection. Thanks!

I could use this same logic to imply that you do not understand science - perhaps you would explain why heavy metals exist on earth in the amounts that they do and how their presents relate to the near circular orbit of earth around the sun.

The Traveler

[Heavenguard]

This place came to mind: Beliefnet offers features on religion, spirituality, faith, health, prayer, the Bible, holistic lifestyle, and more

There's info and forums for many major religions.

I only just browsed a little bit passingly recently, thats why I remember it. I am not able to vouch for its lack (or abundance) of bias.

[DigitalShadow]

May I just say something about the 'theory of evolution' - that's exactly what it is, a theory. There is no factual documentation that backs up the notion that mankind evolved from any kind of ape. If evolution were a fact why are there not evolving species now on earth?

I agree with Willow, except let me clarify one smal point.... All species on the earth at this time are evolving, but where is the species in between man and apes?? Wouldn't there still be some??? The Apes are still here, fish are still here, amebia are still on the earth. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I would honestly like some answers too. Evolution happens, but I don't think that man came from apes and I honestly don't think science is perfect therefore the answers we get from our tests are not perfect or completely correct.

I would like to clarify a few points in the theory of evolution. Since you say you would like to know, I will explain to the best of my ability. Keep in mind that I am a software developer with a background in science, not a biologist so I have limited knowledge on the subject.

Yes, species are still evolving and we can observe that in organisms with very short life span, like bacteria. That is why you are instructed to keep taking antibiotics even after you're feeling better or you might create a strain of bacteria resistant to that antibiotic.

So why are species still here if they "evolved"? Because there is still a niche for them to fill. When a segment of the population gets seperated and starts adapting to fill a new niche, that doesn't mean all of the population needs to follow, this is how species branch off over time.

We didn't evolve FROM the apes that we know today, we simply share a common ancestor that not longer exists. This can be verified by examining the DNA that we share, including various pieces of "junk DNA" left behind by viruses (ERVs) millions of years ago that only gets passed from parent to child. Many consider this the strongest evidence of evolution as you can track where species branched off from one another very accurately through the ERVs they share in their DNA.

I hope that helps.

[utcowboy]

I read somewhere that we share more genetic markers with pigs then we do with ape??? I don't remember where I saw it but I'll look around again.

[DigitalShadow]

I read somewhere that we share more genetic markers with pigs then we do with ape??? I don't remember where I saw it but I'll look around again.

I haven't heard that, but it sounds like a sensationalist news story prompted by a journalist looking for a headline and having little or no understanding of the subject (those seem to run rampant). I'm fairly certain we are most genetically similar to chimpanzees as they are our closest relatives.

[Misshalfway]

I haven't heard that, but it sounds like a sensationalist news story prompted by a journalist looking for a headline and having little or no understanding of the subject (those seem to run rampant). I'm fairly certain we are most genetically similar to chimpanzees as they are our closest relatives.

I think I understand the theory. My problem is that it is just that.... a theory! And if I am not mistaken, it is not considered absolute fact until it is made a "law"...like the law of gravity.

[Heavenguard]

Some things we'll never be able to prove, and will always be a theory. Some things just aren't re-creatable, such as the big bang theory. (Don't tell me you have the ability to make a universe :) )

The theory of evolution requires much time, much more time than humans have been able to observe. Give it a few more tens of millions of years ... if the Earth/humanity is still around, perhaps our descendants might have evidence for it, hahaha.

[rameumptom]

I think I understand the theory. My problem is that it is just that.... a theory! And if I am not mistaken, it is not considered absolute fact until it is made a "law"...like the law of gravity.

What???? When did they make that a law? No wonder I've lately been having trouble making huge leaps of faith....