The Reason I believed the LDS church was True..

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Ajax, you said/asked:

What would motivate a person to be forgiving (all the time, not just when it was in your own best interest) were it not for religion?

RM: Are religious folks "...forgiving...all the time?" Overt religious influence is probably measured in a small # of a week's 168 hours. So a person's other nurturing: family, associates, etc will quite likely bear heavy on their character. What one experiences will generally pattern their behavior.

To me it seems that if I were atheist, I would simply act in my own best earthly interest. As a believer in God and the afterlife, I act in my own best eternal interest. RM: Is one of those interests better (more moral) than the other? Depending on which belief I adopted, it would seem to me that I would act very differently. RM: Which have you adopted? Your suppositions are meaningless. They simply bolster uncertainty, if not ignorance, keeping you in a state of confusion... In my respectful observation :-)

1. I would take revenge if the oppurtunity presented itself. It's something I've always wanted. I choose to believe that I don't have to settle the score with everyone who has mistreated me. If I knew the score was never to be settled, I would definitely be working on finding a way to do so whether I achieved it or not. For me, revenge would take on a much higher priority if I were to take on an atheist mindset.

RM: IF you think religion makes you good/better, then by all means stay with it. Many of us have found that not to be the case.

2. I've also heard atheist people on this board say, "If there are no children involved, divorce for whatever reason you want." As a believer, I'm much more committed to my spouse. If this life were all there were and I only got to go around once, why not divorce a spouse if you had a better oppurtunity? From a community perspective this seems like a viciously unstable lifesyle and no way to live at all. From an individual perspective it seems like the thing to do. This is just another way in which I would probably act differently.

RM: I've also talked with church goers who advocate divorce as well. I could be wrong, but RCism is the only church that does not condone divorce, or birth control. Many RCs simply solve their marital problems by infidelity or walking away. Would you be committed to an abusive spouse, as a faithful RC must be? An abusive marital/family environment is also, "a viciously unstable lifestyle."

Belief is definitely a reason people act differently. Are you saying that as an atheist, you do all the good things that believers do but out of different reasons? If so, what are those reasons? Explain them to me because from what I see they wouldn't motivate me as strongly as supernatural reasons.

You are correct, "belief" in 'whatever' definitely affects how people act. i.e. Belief in reality substantiated facts, or belief in mystical-magic, untruths, misrepresentations etc. Should lead one to be very careful what they 'invest' their belief in. I guess it comes down to: "To each their own."

A measurement of one's ability to enjoy a fullness of life is quite simple: Are you enjoying life or simply enduring it waiting for the better 'next one' in Heaven? IF you at all think Heaven over this one, so-be-it. HOWEVER, if that is the case, AND you (a person) want to enjoy this one, then set about changing things, for the better, in this one. Possible unless being too messed up by their individual life-process. That is when some might, "give their life to Jesus" and find a 'measure' of joy to sustain them until Heaven. If/when that be the case, "go for it!"

In doing so however, try to understand those who do not see Jesus as their redeemer and savior. Yet they can, and do, live by the principles of justice and empathy he, among others, advocate as the way to a fullness of life for self and others--here and now.

We're all on the same road. Some are luckier--genetically & familially--and smarter. Just the way it is... Watch out for the pot-holes... Warm regards, Roger

[_truth dancer]

What would motivate a person to be forgiving (all the time, not just when it was in your own best interest) were it not for religion?

The understanding that not forgiving hurts oneself.

To me it seems that if I were atheist, I would simply act in my own best earthly interest. As a believer in God and the afterlife, I act in my own best eternal interest. Depending on which belief I adopted, it would seem to me that I would act very differently.

For me, the idea that a person is motivated to do good for the reward, punishment is very, VERY selfish. (Think Abraham)!

But, I always say, if a person need religion to be a decent human being, by all means hold to it! :-)

1. I would take revenge if the oppurtunity presented itself. It's something I've always wanted. I choose to believe that I don't have to settle the score with everyone who has mistreated me. If I knew the score was never to be settled, I would definitely be working on finding a way to do so whether I achieved it or not. For me, revenge would take on a much higher priority if I were to take on an atheist mindset.

I think humans (and all creatures) have a better innate sense of how to act, what is in their best interest and what is not. Think tit for tat... or game theory.

2. I've also heard atheist people on this board say, "If there are no children involved, divorce for whatever reason you want." As a believer, I'm much more committed to my spouse. If this life were all there were and I only got to go around once, why not divorce a spouse if you had a better oppurtunity? From a community perspective this seems like a viciously unstable lifesyle and no way to live at all. From an individual perspective it seems like the thing to do. This is just another way in which I would probably act differently.

I know plenty of atheists who value marriage. I doubt the divorce rate is higher in atheists that deists.

Belief is definitely a reason people act differently. Are you saying that as an atheist, you do all the good things that believers do but out of different reasons? If so, what are those reasons? Explain them to me because from what I see they wouldn't motivate me as strongly as supernatural reasons.

Say you're a slave in antebellum America. What would make you want to live on? If you ever got out, what would convince you to walk away and not seek vengeance on your captors?

Seems humans have an innate sense for survival, as do most creatures. I do not think it has anything to do with religion.

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

Basically, church organization is the same in all ages; the same organization that existed in the primitive Church prevails now. (Sixth Article of Faith). Whenever the Church has been fully established on earth, the priesthood, the keys of the kingdom, and the apostolic power have been manifest. In such periods there have always been prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. (Eph. 4:11-14)

But God's earthly kingdom is always organized in such a manner as to serve most ideally the needs of the people under the conditions that exist in the particular age. Hence, provision is made for "helps, governments," quorums, auxiliary organizations, committees, boards, and special administrative units to satisfy special needs. (1 Cor. 12:28) In the last days, worldly conditions and the complexities of civization being what they are, the church orginization is probably more extended and intricate than in any previous dispensation.

Church orginization is always given by revelation. One of the great evidences of the need of contemporary revelation is the fact that changins social, economic, industrial, and other conditions, warrant changes in the helps and governments appended to the great basic and unchanging church organization.

Over the whole Church the First Presidency presides; each group of General Authorities acts under the direction of the Presidency in an assigned sphere. From time to time special auxiliaries, committees, and organizations are set up to serve the whole Church.

All of this is set up to assure truth is taught. This is done on the local level by way of Stakes (composed of Wards and branches). Each of these so organized as to carry out the full program of the church. The program is this, to ensure that every ordinance of the gospel is made available, that God may make covenant with his people on an individual basis. That in the keeping of these covenants they may be called after his name and receive the blessings associated therewith.

For the longest time, I believed that, too, Gaz.

But if the Joseph Smith was suppose to have restored the Primitive Church, why are there so many stark differences between that Primitive Church and the church of today?

I can't tell you how many times I've had to go into detailed explanations as to the differences between the Mormon definition for what Teachers, Bishops, etc, do in our Church as opposed to how it is laid out in the Bible.

Why was there no mention of Wards or Stakes...even in the Book of Mormon? Or the D&C for that matter?

I think your latter definition of how the Church was organized is more correct. If we're going on the idea that it was inspired to be run this way based on modern revelation.

But then, why is there still the constant emphasis on the restoring of Christ's original Church?

It really isn't. The Mormon Church is yet another interpretation of Christ's Church, but the organization hardly resembles it.

[_ajax18]

Yet they can, and do, live by the principles of justice and empathy he, among others, advocate as the way to a fullness of life for self and others--here and now.

My understanding is that while there is motivation in atheism to live a moral life, the motivation is weaker than if that person had religious beliefs. Obviously we all try to make the world better. I believe this is right and don't agree with a Christianity that completely ignores such struggles. Yet the problem is that we can't change the world quickly enough to make it fair. For this reason I must rely on eternity for my own personal salvation.

Hi TD,

Yes it is selfish, but why does that have to be a bad thing? I really don't like that word "Selfish." We all do things for ourselves, therefore by definition we are alll selfish. Selfishness as an accusation makes no sense in a logical argument. It's boundaries are defined by the accuser. In my own belief system altruism, self sacrifice, etc are all in the best interest of the one making the sacrifice. So in a sense it's not really a sacrifice at all. I don't believe in a sacrifice that comes without blessings. If people do good for their own sake, why should that matter? Why does that get people so up in arms?

Human beings can be innately good without religion. Yet I submit that religion can motivate one to even better behavior. That's part of the gospel message that Pres. Hinckley presented. We're here to help bad men become good and good men to become better.

Not fogiving can hurt someone if they need that person down the road, but if you don't, why would you forgive. I find people quick to forgive and excuse those who they need, yet very slow to forgive those who are beneath them in power. Once again, I propose that without religion people, would not forgive as often.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Life is a great teacher. Yet how would you know these things before you experienced them? My religious upbringing definitely put me to consider things like this at an early age.

I don't know how I would have known before I experienced them. In all honesty it is hard for me to imagine actually knowing anything before experiencing it. :)

I had an upbringing where I was told to love, be kind, give, nurture, in an effort to be an ideal "woman". I was indoctrinated to care for others more than I cared for myself. This was absent a religion. I'm glad religion taught you how to be a good person. :)

[_JAK]

Could it possibly be Inconceivable that what makes people moral or not, responsible or not is not due to a religious affiliation and/or God belief

What would motivate a person to be forgiving (all the time, not just when it was in your own best interest) were it not for religion?

To me it seems that if I were atheist, I would simply act in my own best earthly interest. As a believer in God and the afterlife, I act in my own best eternal interest. Depending on which belief I adopted, it would seem to me that I would act very differently.

I'm kind because I know what it feels like to be hurt. I give because I know what it feels like to go hungry. I smile and welcome the lonely or lost because I know what it feels like for someone to turn away from me and not meet my eyes. I forgive because I know what it feels to have someone never forgive me (or forgive myself).

I learned life's lessons from life. I learned from pain and love what was important and try to give the same to humanity. No religion taught me that.

I have empathy... some of which I wish I didn't. But I can't hurt another without feeling it myself. No dogma was needed.

In short, barrelomonkeys,

There is a causal link for your attitude and/or your behavior. A rational thought. Any particular God notion is irrelevant when contrasted with a rational understanding of cause for anything.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Gaz, you said:

All of this is set up to assure truth is taught. This is done on the local level by way of Stakes (composed of Wards and branches). Each of these so organized as to carry out the full program of the church. The program is this, to ensure that every ordinance of the gospel is made available, that God may make covenant with his people on an individual basis. That in the keeping of these covenants they may be called after his name and receive the blessings associated therewith

You are absolutely correct in YOUR assertion... However that does not mean in any way that LDSism fills ITS declared mandate. Any serious, rational study of its dogma, and LDS application of reason, will reveal it does not represent Christ's teachings any better than any other Christian denomination or sect.

Mormonism, OTOH, is very well organized and provides social centres for its members better than does many sects. But, its exclusivity, arrogance, dogmaticism, absolutism, and its far-fetched theology gives it away as being no more than another well oiled, successful religious ruse. That it satisfies the needs of some is to its credit. Not however to its self-declared divine endorsement, IMSCO ... Warm regards, Roger

[_barrelomonkeys]

However I would need to qualify that with a modification regarding the definition of God that "those" people have. If "those" people believe in a jealous, vengeful and hateful God similar to the one described in the Old Testament, then yes, the statements apply to them, even though they subscribe to no organized religion.

Hi Quantumwave. Thanks for your answer. I tend to agree with you.

[_JAK]

liz3564 stated:
I have had many spiritual experiences which I consider to be 100% real. No one can convince me otherwise. I have also spoken with close friends of other religions who have had moving spiritual experiences, and I don't discount their experiences, either.

Having asked several the same question and received no response, I’ll ask you.

How do you distinguish between “spiritual experiences” and emotions or emotional responses?

Of course people regard their own emotional experiences as “real.” A child regards the tooth fairy as real (or Santa). However, “moving spiritual experiences” (as you state) are emotional responses to some event or some feeling. There is no doubt that people tend to regard feelings as valid. However, emotional responses are not reliable. Fear is an emotional response. It’s real. It may or may not be justified. Feelings and “spiritual experiences” appear to be the same without distinction.

What’s your clear, transparent distinction between emotional and “spiritual”?

I’ll withhold questions about other aspects of your post now.

JAK

[_JAK]

liz3564 stated:
I can't tell you how many times I've had to go into detailed explanations as to the differences between the Mormon definition for what Teachers, Bishops, etc, do in our Church as opposed to how it is laid out in the Bible.

Why was there no mention of Wards or Stakes...even in the Book of Mormon? Or the D&C for that matter?

Try to keep in mind, liz, that religions like civilizations, cultures, and even languages evolve over time. Each may go for many decades with little change depending upon the forces brought to bear. They may emerge or evolve rapidly given a particular circumstance which causes rapid change.

Mormonism is a relatively recent evolution within the Protestant Reformation’s tradition. With the pressure of Martin Luther in 1517, the Protestant Reformation was begun. Since that time we have seen the emergence/evolution of more than a thousand religious denominations, sects, and cults that are a part of the fractured religion of Christianity.

If you keep historical record in mind, and do your homework, explanation and analysis of doctrinal shifts in Christianity should not be difficult.

You speak as if time and religious dogma were static. If you think that, you have an erroneous concept of how civilizations and cultures change. Religion is one aspect of civilization and culture.

Keeping historical perspective and facts clear can benefit you in discussions with blind faith individuals.

JAK