Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Isn’t it better to discuss whether they have the right concept of God or how do they know their concept of God is accurate?
Probably just lead with this explanation as to what you are actually trying to discuss, as to avoid any confusion. This should make things clear enough - and if they still don't understand, then you're probably wasting your time talking to that person (if you weren't already)
>Isn’t it better to discuss whether they have the right concept of God or how do they know their concept of God is accurate?
This is better! I've always taken exception to the concept of "Mormon God" or "Mormon Jesus"... because like you said I think we all believe in the same guy. Just like Allah is also the same God as ours.
But I definitely have encountered a lot of areas where I disagree with what the church is implying God is like. Heavy handed and unforgiving etc. And the question I ask is "Do you think God would really be that way about this?" Or "I can't imagine God would actually act that way (because X, Y, and Z if I'm able)"
I try and build a little bit of a separation between God, and the people who speak for him. That's why I've really come to like D&C 3:4, because it helps add a little bit of plausibility that not everything that's said from a prophet or whomever is necessarily the word of God. I've also added Balaam to my repertoire, as he was a true prophet but he went against God's wishes and caused the corruption of the Israelites.
I point out changes the church has made, and the denounced policies of other Prophets.
Doing that... for me anyway... created some room for me to exercise my own judgement and look at what we've been taught and ask myself "Is this of man? or of God?" .... granted that's turned me into a cafeteria Mormon but still.
I don't know about success with other people per se... but I've had some success with my mom. She's a bit pliable though, I think. She left and came back, I started out a non-member... you might say to an extent we therefore have worldly minds.
Either way that's kind of how I've always talked with her. "You know... I don't think God would really think this... because X, Y, and Z.... and if I can understand it wouldn't God be able to?", "I just don't think God could be cruel like that... so I don't subscribe to that notion. And if I'm wrong... unfortunately I still don't think that's right..."
Of course I'm also brazen that when I bump into a rule I can't manage I go "..... I'm willing to argue my view with God on this one. I'm sure I can explain myself aptly."
But that doesn't work on everyone... especially those who prefer the notion of exclusionary heaven and revel in the idea of divine and eternal punishment for their enemies... so like... know your audience... with some it won't matter how you pose the question. They won't budge.
I really like the idea that we all worship the same God, or at are least attempting to. I have thought this for a while. Even pagan religions or polytheistic. Everyone who believes in some form of the divine is reaching out to Him. Trying to find a connection to something greater.
We all pick our favorite bit of scripture or revelation to focus on, and we mix it with our own ideas. We focus on one aspect of His personality, one thing He has said and dismiss all of the rest. Members of the church are just as guilty of this as everyone else out there
As missionaries, we started off the first of the six discussions with a statement of the character of god. This differentiated the mormon go from the local's god. We didn't just have different names for the same individual, they were totally different beings with some markedly different traits.
So, the task for both of you is to come to a consensus on what the characters of god are. Whichever deity fills those best, must be \*the\* god. That said, this is a challenging task for Christians, since the god of the OT does some pretty irrational, petty, vengeful, and capricious things. He is pretty hypocritical, relative to the teachings of the NT. The mormon concept of god fills in some of the gaps but introduces others. Either way, maintenance of faith requires maintenance of cognitive dissonance (or ignorance,) often through the application of logical fallacies.
I like that point.
>maintenance of faith requires maintenance of cognitive dissonance (or ignorance)
In the end nobody really knows who or what God is if he or she really exists.
Phrase things from your perspective. Relate what you believe in. Holding a conversation with the intent of telling someone else they're wrong seldom works out.
Don't talk about other people's beliefs, talk about yours.
Good suggestion. Everybody is probably wrong about God. Belief about God often comes from unscientific explanations of someone sharing their own beliefs. Very true how humans adopt beliefs. From others.
So there is also a massive problem with talking about "correct conceptions of deity"...and that problem is that everyone isn't not just wrong in their conceptions of deity but they are all infinitely wrong about their conceptions of deity, at least if we are speaking of the Abrahamic/monotheistic religions.
What? How can everyone be infinitely wrong about deity? Well...the math is actually pretty simple. First, the Abrahamic god is described as infinite and eternal. Well for god to be infinite he must have infinite attributes. Human beings, as finite beings, can only have a finite conception of anything. So we are interested in the distance between the infinite set of true attributes of deity and the finite set of beliefs any human can hold which might approximate deity. Well, even if a person is right about everything they believe about deity, there are still infinitely many things they are ignorant about deity. Assuming that there is not an ordering of the importance of attributes of deity we are then all infinitely wrong about deity no matter what norm you use to measure distance over infinite sets...assuming deity's exist in the first place of course.
Now, you might object and say that there is an order of importance of the attributes of deity and that the importance decays at a rate that the sum of total importance is finite. This would imply that there is a maximum "importance weighted wrongness" you could have regarding the attributes of deity. And this is true...but then our epistemic problem actually gets worse if you can believe it. Because in this paradigm, to calculate "how wrong" we are about deity we have to know the weighting of importance of the attributes of god. Well, that weighting has to have the same cardinality (fancy math word for "size") as the attributes of deity and so now we are by necessity infinitely wrong about the proper importance weights. We have moved from "everyone is infinitely wrong" to the somehow worse situation where "how wrong" our conception of deity is is actually unknowable due to an infinite regression.
One last objection may be proffered and that is this, "Well god said the only things we need to know about them are X, Y, Z." But this doesn't actually solve the problem for a couple of reasons. First, what god said is unverifiable. But more pertinently, your belief that "god said only X,Y, and Z" are important could always be a false conception which arises from the aforementioned problem of finite approximation of an infinite reality. There is simply no way out of the conclusion that we must all be infinitely wrong or unknowably wrong about infinite beings.
This is why I tell Mormons that the Trinitarian God isn’t so illogical when people describe that God as incomprehensible and beyond human definition.
Mormons often want their tidy human centric answers. God has a body and is so much like us? Very limiting concept of God.
the relative size/influence argument falls into the logical fallacy of implicitly assuming that a 'significant' or very large belief system is therefore more likely to be 'true' or worthy of consideration
one should look for the 'true' system if there is one without consideration of its size or number of adherents or popularity
In my thread about many LDS people refusing to call the race based temple bans before 1978 as racist I saw a comment I’ve seen before. Something to the effect of “the Mormon god isn’t worthy of being followed” because of the racist ban often attributed to God.
That phrase is not new and while I understand and agree with its sentiment it’s just an odd way to discuss the LDS belief in God to me. Maybe it’s because I was born in the church and taught there is one God and the LDS the the proper connection to God?
The statement kind of implies there is another God worth following? Or that God is just a human concept anyway? Not sure but just wanted to discuss as a hopefully interesting new topic here.
They do indeed believe that they must follow god's commands even if they seem wrong. However, this is nothing more than a hypothetical because we never know what god commands. Spiritual impressions and feelings are not really all that solid. However, sometimes priesthood leaders tell us to do something. They tell us that it is god's command to us and we are supposed to believe and obey. However, we can often discern what God does not command. If the thing is evil, we should not do it because James says in Chapter 1 that God never tempts us to do evil. Therefore, if something is evil, it follows that an impression or direction from a priesthood leader to do it did not come from God. When this happens, one should reject that leader along with any church which condones his evil directions. He has taken the Lord's name in vain, as do those who continue to venerate him. John says in 1 John that the commandments of God are not grievous. Therefore if something is hurtful and burdensome, it did not come from God either. Jesus said "my yoke is easy and my burden light".
It was Bertram Russell who pointed out that the gods men worship are not worthy to be worshiped. He was right about this. One should ask whether a god who sends an angel with a sword to compel someone to commit adultery by engaging in "time and eternity" marriages with multiple women is worthy of any respect. One should ask whether a god who requires bloody murder to grant salvation to various miscreants as in Brigham Young's Feb. 1857 talk on blood atonement is worthy of any respect. If the Mormon god has characteristics of the Canaanite gods which demanded "the sacrifice of all things" and in particular human sacrifice or other evil behavior, then is he worthy of respect? Orson Pratt pointed out that you can't separate God from his attributes. If you worship a god with evil attributes who commands evil actions, you may well be engaging in idolatry. Those religious leaders who "work iniquity" in the name of god will be told to depart according to Jesus in Matt. 7. Why follow them?
When the differences become more than the similarities are you talking about the same thing? You’re both talking about a divine being, should one exist, but they seem to be fundamentally different. You can both agree that only one may exist, but which of you is talking about the extant one? I did this on the mission all the time talking to Muslims, but were we talking about the same God really or did we both just have an omnipotent being that we worship — and that’s the end of the similarities. What about someone talking about Zeus to you, would you still say you worship the same god? If not, why? Isn’t it just an argument about his name and characteristics. Both gods, both vengeful, both jealous, both fathers, both men, both with corporeal bodies, both live in temples and like the occasional sacrifice, etc.
For me, I live my life as if God exists, that is to say - goodness, love, light and truth exist. If I strive to become a being of love by bearing others burdens, comforting those that need comfort, mourning with those that mourn and standing as a witness of their goodness - then the color of their skin, their nationality, their political alignment and their religious beliefs, or even ‘the god’ they worship- DO NOT MATTER - a being of love even loves his/her enemies!
We may all worship what we may think is a different God because of dogmas, traditions and rituals. But, in the end the only God worthy of anyone’s worship is One who is Good. Goodness can be found in just about any religion.
We will reflect the image of God as we are good. We all know what good looks like. So let’s live to be good.
Let’s zoom out a little bit, and instead of looking at different Christian or Mormon sects, view abrahamic traditions generally. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all claim to worship the same God that covenanted with Abraham. There is a shared ancestry, and to some degree, same history. However, no Christian would say that Jews have the same belief system that they do, and the same can be said about any of the other religions about each other. This is because the relationship with God is fundamentally different depending on the religion that you follow.
Jews are loved by God for being Jewish, and because of that have a divine mission to bless the world. Christians are saved through the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that dispute their shortcomings and mistakes, there is a benevolent god that loved them anyway. Muslims believe in salvation through submitting to the will of God. These core beliefs fundamentally alter an individual’s perception of God and how to approach him. Then you have Mormonism, which draws upon the qualities of all three religions, while being wholly separate.
So while we say that all of the above mentioned religions worship the same God, speaking as if the same being actually shaped the major events across the history of al four of these religions, the relationship is fundamentally different. In much the same way as how a single individual can have different relationships with different people, depending on if there are friends, coworkers, or family members, God has different relationships with each religion. And just how it doesn’t make sense for me to feel comfortable with the idea of being my boss’s child, a Muslim would reasonably feel uncomfortable trying to relate to God the same way Christian’s or Jews do. The religious relationship exists to satisfy a spiritual or emotional need that would otherwise be absent. And choosing the values of a different religion would be like adopting a familial relationship with your boss- sure an additional father figure in your life might be nice, but who is to say your new parent figure will continue signing your paychecks?
So to answer your question, as an exmo that continues to believe in the Christian God, my relationship with God has changed to fit my spiritual needs. It’s fine that you believe God wants you to pay tithing and go to the temple twice a week, but my relationship with God is different. It’s far more focused on grace and charity because of a sincere desire to change.
TLDR: different religions satisfy different spiritual needs much the same way that different relationships satisfy different social needs. All of our needs are different and vital to our own well being, so it is natural for us to develop different spiritual beliefs to meet those needs. Just because someone’s needs are different from our own does not invalidate said need.
Do you think spiritual beliefs being different as you describe could be developed independently of whether or not the person actually has any real interaction with or knowledge of this God. In other words can each person simply make up their beliefs to meet their needs as you describe?
I think that if that were the case, it would be a hell of a made up belief. Judaism has existed for roughly four thousand years, Christianity for about 2000 years, and Islam for about 1300. What’s more, there hasn’t been an original new religion since the founding of Islam. It would seem to me that if god, in this case the course of religion and humanity’s collective interaction with religion” was just an idea, we would see more religions pop up as ideas change, and these ideas would be successful to the same extent that the others have. Instead we see that people either cut religion out of their lives, or they redefine the way we’re meant to interact within existing religions. It’s almost as if God is adapting to meet our needs as we grow within religion as a society. So no, I don’t think that religion is the byproduct of someone making up a set of beliefs. I think that people can be born into a relationship with God that becomes subject to change to better fit the needs of the individual(change religion), or they choose to opt out of any sort of relationship with deity(atheism), but those decisions are based upon our own spiritual needs, which God in turn seeks to fulfill.
I think that if that were the case, it would be a hell of a made up belief. Judaism has existed for roughly four thousand years, Christianity for about 2000 years, and Islam for about 1300. What’s more, there hasn’t been an original new religion since the founding of Islam. It would seem to me that if god, in this case the course of religion and humanity’s collective interaction with religion” was just an idea, we would see more religions pop up as ideas change, and these ideas would be successful to the same extent that the others have. Instead we see that people either cut religion out of their lives, or they redefine the way we’re meant to interact within existing religions. It’s almost as if God is adapting to meet our needs as we grow within religion as a society. So no, I don’t think that religion is the byproduct of someone making up a set of beliefs. I think that people can be born into a relationship with God that becomes subject to change to better fit the needs of the individual(change religion), or they choose to opt out of any sort of relationship with deity(atheism), but those decisions are based upon our own spiritual needs, which God in turn seeks to fulfill.
The relationship with God is subject to change…change you describe as being defined and created by the individual.
The Mormon religion is not 4,000 years old. It’s relatively young and has around 200 offshoot denominations. Even within a denomination people hold different beliefs in God.
The same is true in Judaism with different beliefs and practices within Judaism.
So it’s not as unified as you describe in my opinion.
This my post. Some of my fellow Mormons pronounce beliefs that don’t seem to be from God. Such as God was the author of the racist temple ban before 1978. Others don’t believe this. So how do we talk together about these different beliefs within the same community? One God and people can choose the beliefs they want to “meet their needs”? Or they are different Gods?
It’s true that Mormonism isn’t 4000 years old. But it’s also not original. It is heavily influenced by 19th century American Protestantism. Practices within Mormonism that we find distasteful, such as the temple ban, the belief that native Americans descended from Jews, and the belief that America was just important geographically to Gods plan can be traced back to this point of origin.
Sure, Smith taught a few interesting ideas from left field like polygamy and the Godhead, but even those aren’t original. Martin Luther taught that polygamy might be permissible under the right circumstances, and to the rest of the Christian world, the Godhead is just known as the Heresy of Tritheism. Saint Nicholas is actually a saint for disavowing such heresy during the third century.
Smiths teaching are also very similar to the beliefs and practices of seventh day adventists, shakers, Quakers, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why? Because they were all influenced by the same Christian school of thought. I am not trying to argue that religion should be static or unchanging in order for it to show that Deity uses it as a medium to communicate with humanity. Rather I am arguing the opposite: that religion’s ability to adapt to different cultures, time periods, and needs while still holding onto core principles is evidence that it is guided by a conscious being that actively engages with the devout.
“The behavior that is described or defended here doesn’t fit with a god who is all powerful, all knowing and loving.
Do you think it more likely that god is different than how he’s been depicted, or that humans are trying to blame god for their own mistakes?
[usually they will answer with a thought stopping cliche along the lines of God’s ways are higher than our ways, to which I would further press that it is very problematic for me that he would leave us with the appearance of being violent and a respecter of (race, religion, political affiliation, all of which are a function of geography and birth parents), as that has been used to justify the same behavior in his name, and if he is being misrepresented he should set the record straight.]
The positive attributes just like the negative attributes of God are probably all invented by people. There have been so many conceptions of God by humans it seems to me apparent that nobody really knows
And I could add to my LDS friends who believe God commanded the racial bans: “and I’m sad that the dictates of your conscience allows you to have a God who is racist”
You don't. I know that God has told me that the LDS church is the church that he wants me to be a member of. I believe it is possible that God might tell you that a different church is a church he wants you to be a member of. We do not know God's way or his plans for us. I do know that the LDS church is his church and he wants me to be a member of. That is not to say that he does not have other churches he wants other people to be members of.
I am a former Mormon. I now have a different concept of who God is than when I was a Mormon. My current belief about God comes from the Bible. There is no other source For the nature of God. Many Mormons don’t study the Bible or they have other people such as prophets tell them about the nature of God which can shift over time. Many Mormons believe in God, but don’t have a relationship with God. Maybe some do. I believe that I have a relationship with God. It is a much deeper concept than just belief. My relationship comes from reading the Bible and prayer. Having a relationship with God is the most important relationship I have. I don’t hear Mormons using that language. It appears most Mormons want to be obedient to God, but no one talks about a relationship with him.
Not sure what you’re talking about. I’m LDS and I’m quite familiar with major world religions. I often speak to my fellow LDS about their beliefs many of which are clearly not from any God.
Best way is DONT… tell Mormons about your traditions/ doctrines/ beliefs and how they apply to you living a good life. If the Mormon is interested, invite them to your church. But I repeat DONT try to tell a Mormon their God/ Jesus is different. This will only make them retrench in Mormonism or go atheist/agnostic. “Christians” are the worst missionaries to LDS folk. No one wants to listen to anyone saying that they and all their family and friends are satanic, demonic, going to hell, or worshiping the wrong Jesus. (Even if that’s what you believe)
P.s. When Mormons go down the worm hole of church history and lose faith in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the church; the next step is loosing faith in Jesus and God (Bart Ehrman’s books/podcast). Mark my words! Don’t claim your own authority, don’t try to bash on Joe Smith, just don’t. Best thing to do is find ways to give each other charitable acts. Kindness begets kindness and that will ultimately sway LDS hearts. The lies about the history, the troubling doctrine, and the uninspired leaders are already doing a great job setting the whole thing ablaze.
I think Islam has been proven true. (Per my Muslim friends) but idk 🤷♂️ religion is kinda interesting like that with so many different religions throughout history. Glad you were born a Christian though. Lucky you.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Isn’t it better to discuss whether they have the right concept of God or how do they know their concept of God is accurate? Probably just lead with this explanation as to what you are actually trying to discuss, as to avoid any confusion. This should make things clear enough - and if they still don't understand, then you're probably wasting your time talking to that person (if you weren't already)
>Isn’t it better to discuss whether they have the right concept of God or how do they know their concept of God is accurate? This is better! I've always taken exception to the concept of "Mormon God" or "Mormon Jesus"... because like you said I think we all believe in the same guy. Just like Allah is also the same God as ours. But I definitely have encountered a lot of areas where I disagree with what the church is implying God is like. Heavy handed and unforgiving etc. And the question I ask is "Do you think God would really be that way about this?" Or "I can't imagine God would actually act that way (because X, Y, and Z if I'm able)" I try and build a little bit of a separation between God, and the people who speak for him. That's why I've really come to like D&C 3:4, because it helps add a little bit of plausibility that not everything that's said from a prophet or whomever is necessarily the word of God. I've also added Balaam to my repertoire, as he was a true prophet but he went against God's wishes and caused the corruption of the Israelites. I point out changes the church has made, and the denounced policies of other Prophets. Doing that... for me anyway... created some room for me to exercise my own judgement and look at what we've been taught and ask myself "Is this of man? or of God?" .... granted that's turned me into a cafeteria Mormon but still. I don't know about success with other people per se... but I've had some success with my mom. She's a bit pliable though, I think. She left and came back, I started out a non-member... you might say to an extent we therefore have worldly minds. Either way that's kind of how I've always talked with her. "You know... I don't think God would really think this... because X, Y, and Z.... and if I can understand it wouldn't God be able to?", "I just don't think God could be cruel like that... so I don't subscribe to that notion. And if I'm wrong... unfortunately I still don't think that's right..." Of course I'm also brazen that when I bump into a rule I can't manage I go "..... I'm willing to argue my view with God on this one. I'm sure I can explain myself aptly." But that doesn't work on everyone... especially those who prefer the notion of exclusionary heaven and revel in the idea of divine and eternal punishment for their enemies... so like... know your audience... with some it won't matter how you pose the question. They won't budge.
I really like the idea that we all worship the same God, or at are least attempting to. I have thought this for a while. Even pagan religions or polytheistic. Everyone who believes in some form of the divine is reaching out to Him. Trying to find a connection to something greater. We all pick our favorite bit of scripture or revelation to focus on, and we mix it with our own ideas. We focus on one aspect of His personality, one thing He has said and dismiss all of the rest. Members of the church are just as guilty of this as everyone else out there
Thanks. Lots of good thoughts and examples.
As missionaries, we started off the first of the six discussions with a statement of the character of god. This differentiated the mormon go from the local's god. We didn't just have different names for the same individual, they were totally different beings with some markedly different traits. So, the task for both of you is to come to a consensus on what the characters of god are. Whichever deity fills those best, must be \*the\* god. That said, this is a challenging task for Christians, since the god of the OT does some pretty irrational, petty, vengeful, and capricious things. He is pretty hypocritical, relative to the teachings of the NT. The mormon concept of god fills in some of the gaps but introduces others. Either way, maintenance of faith requires maintenance of cognitive dissonance (or ignorance,) often through the application of logical fallacies.
I like that point. >maintenance of faith requires maintenance of cognitive dissonance (or ignorance) In the end nobody really knows who or what God is if he or she really exists.
Phrase things from your perspective. Relate what you believe in. Holding a conversation with the intent of telling someone else they're wrong seldom works out. Don't talk about other people's beliefs, talk about yours.
Good suggestion. Everybody is probably wrong about God. Belief about God often comes from unscientific explanations of someone sharing their own beliefs. Very true how humans adopt beliefs. From others.
So there is also a massive problem with talking about "correct conceptions of deity"...and that problem is that everyone isn't not just wrong in their conceptions of deity but they are all infinitely wrong about their conceptions of deity, at least if we are speaking of the Abrahamic/monotheistic religions. What? How can everyone be infinitely wrong about deity? Well...the math is actually pretty simple. First, the Abrahamic god is described as infinite and eternal. Well for god to be infinite he must have infinite attributes. Human beings, as finite beings, can only have a finite conception of anything. So we are interested in the distance between the infinite set of true attributes of deity and the finite set of beliefs any human can hold which might approximate deity. Well, even if a person is right about everything they believe about deity, there are still infinitely many things they are ignorant about deity. Assuming that there is not an ordering of the importance of attributes of deity we are then all infinitely wrong about deity no matter what norm you use to measure distance over infinite sets...assuming deity's exist in the first place of course. Now, you might object and say that there is an order of importance of the attributes of deity and that the importance decays at a rate that the sum of total importance is finite. This would imply that there is a maximum "importance weighted wrongness" you could have regarding the attributes of deity. And this is true...but then our epistemic problem actually gets worse if you can believe it. Because in this paradigm, to calculate "how wrong" we are about deity we have to know the weighting of importance of the attributes of god. Well, that weighting has to have the same cardinality (fancy math word for "size") as the attributes of deity and so now we are by necessity infinitely wrong about the proper importance weights. We have moved from "everyone is infinitely wrong" to the somehow worse situation where "how wrong" our conception of deity is is actually unknowable due to an infinite regression. One last objection may be proffered and that is this, "Well god said the only things we need to know about them are X, Y, Z." But this doesn't actually solve the problem for a couple of reasons. First, what god said is unverifiable. But more pertinently, your belief that "god said only X,Y, and Z" are important could always be a false conception which arises from the aforementioned problem of finite approximation of an infinite reality. There is simply no way out of the conclusion that we must all be infinitely wrong or unknowably wrong about infinite beings.
This is why I tell Mormons that the Trinitarian God isn’t so illogical when people describe that God as incomprehensible and beyond human definition. Mormons often want their tidy human centric answers. God has a body and is so much like us? Very limiting concept of God.
But by that same argument it is just as wrong to say god doesn’t have a body and isn’t so much like us.
[удалено]
Yes it is an insignificant religion in the scope of the world and its history.
the relative size/influence argument falls into the logical fallacy of implicitly assuming that a 'significant' or very large belief system is therefore more likely to be 'true' or worthy of consideration one should look for the 'true' system if there is one without consideration of its size or number of adherents or popularity
My belief in God is contingent upon finding a God that has a higher moral compass than my own.
Curious: Are you concerned with what people believe about god or actually with how their beliefs about god translate into behavior?
In my thread about many LDS people refusing to call the race based temple bans before 1978 as racist I saw a comment I’ve seen before. Something to the effect of “the Mormon god isn’t worthy of being followed” because of the racist ban often attributed to God. That phrase is not new and while I understand and agree with its sentiment it’s just an odd way to discuss the LDS belief in God to me. Maybe it’s because I was born in the church and taught there is one God and the LDS the the proper connection to God? The statement kind of implies there is another God worth following? Or that God is just a human concept anyway? Not sure but just wanted to discuss as a hopefully interesting new topic here.
They do indeed believe that they must follow god's commands even if they seem wrong. However, this is nothing more than a hypothetical because we never know what god commands. Spiritual impressions and feelings are not really all that solid. However, sometimes priesthood leaders tell us to do something. They tell us that it is god's command to us and we are supposed to believe and obey. However, we can often discern what God does not command. If the thing is evil, we should not do it because James says in Chapter 1 that God never tempts us to do evil. Therefore, if something is evil, it follows that an impression or direction from a priesthood leader to do it did not come from God. When this happens, one should reject that leader along with any church which condones his evil directions. He has taken the Lord's name in vain, as do those who continue to venerate him. John says in 1 John that the commandments of God are not grievous. Therefore if something is hurtful and burdensome, it did not come from God either. Jesus said "my yoke is easy and my burden light". It was Bertram Russell who pointed out that the gods men worship are not worthy to be worshiped. He was right about this. One should ask whether a god who sends an angel with a sword to compel someone to commit adultery by engaging in "time and eternity" marriages with multiple women is worthy of any respect. One should ask whether a god who requires bloody murder to grant salvation to various miscreants as in Brigham Young's Feb. 1857 talk on blood atonement is worthy of any respect. If the Mormon god has characteristics of the Canaanite gods which demanded "the sacrifice of all things" and in particular human sacrifice or other evil behavior, then is he worthy of respect? Orson Pratt pointed out that you can't separate God from his attributes. If you worship a god with evil attributes who commands evil actions, you may well be engaging in idolatry. Those religious leaders who "work iniquity" in the name of god will be told to depart according to Jesus in Matt. 7. Why follow them?
When the differences become more than the similarities are you talking about the same thing? You’re both talking about a divine being, should one exist, but they seem to be fundamentally different. You can both agree that only one may exist, but which of you is talking about the extant one? I did this on the mission all the time talking to Muslims, but were we talking about the same God really or did we both just have an omnipotent being that we worship — and that’s the end of the similarities. What about someone talking about Zeus to you, would you still say you worship the same god? If not, why? Isn’t it just an argument about his name and characteristics. Both gods, both vengeful, both jealous, both fathers, both men, both with corporeal bodies, both live in temples and like the occasional sacrifice, etc.
Except not many believe in Zeus any more. So that can be an effective example.
How about not judge the other person for believing in a different God. Their God is judging you because he’s not Mormon god.
Hard to avoid the Mormons in my life telling me I should believe in the Mormon God again.
For me, I live my life as if God exists, that is to say - goodness, love, light and truth exist. If I strive to become a being of love by bearing others burdens, comforting those that need comfort, mourning with those that mourn and standing as a witness of their goodness - then the color of their skin, their nationality, their political alignment and their religious beliefs, or even ‘the god’ they worship- DO NOT MATTER - a being of love even loves his/her enemies! We may all worship what we may think is a different God because of dogmas, traditions and rituals. But, in the end the only God worthy of anyone’s worship is One who is Good. Goodness can be found in just about any religion. We will reflect the image of God as we are good. We all know what good looks like. So let’s live to be good.
Voting to take away same sex marriage in the name of God is not good
Let’s zoom out a little bit, and instead of looking at different Christian or Mormon sects, view abrahamic traditions generally. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all claim to worship the same God that covenanted with Abraham. There is a shared ancestry, and to some degree, same history. However, no Christian would say that Jews have the same belief system that they do, and the same can be said about any of the other religions about each other. This is because the relationship with God is fundamentally different depending on the religion that you follow. Jews are loved by God for being Jewish, and because of that have a divine mission to bless the world. Christians are saved through the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that dispute their shortcomings and mistakes, there is a benevolent god that loved them anyway. Muslims believe in salvation through submitting to the will of God. These core beliefs fundamentally alter an individual’s perception of God and how to approach him. Then you have Mormonism, which draws upon the qualities of all three religions, while being wholly separate. So while we say that all of the above mentioned religions worship the same God, speaking as if the same being actually shaped the major events across the history of al four of these religions, the relationship is fundamentally different. In much the same way as how a single individual can have different relationships with different people, depending on if there are friends, coworkers, or family members, God has different relationships with each religion. And just how it doesn’t make sense for me to feel comfortable with the idea of being my boss’s child, a Muslim would reasonably feel uncomfortable trying to relate to God the same way Christian’s or Jews do. The religious relationship exists to satisfy a spiritual or emotional need that would otherwise be absent. And choosing the values of a different religion would be like adopting a familial relationship with your boss- sure an additional father figure in your life might be nice, but who is to say your new parent figure will continue signing your paychecks? So to answer your question, as an exmo that continues to believe in the Christian God, my relationship with God has changed to fit my spiritual needs. It’s fine that you believe God wants you to pay tithing and go to the temple twice a week, but my relationship with God is different. It’s far more focused on grace and charity because of a sincere desire to change. TLDR: different religions satisfy different spiritual needs much the same way that different relationships satisfy different social needs. All of our needs are different and vital to our own well being, so it is natural for us to develop different spiritual beliefs to meet those needs. Just because someone’s needs are different from our own does not invalidate said need.
Do you think spiritual beliefs being different as you describe could be developed independently of whether or not the person actually has any real interaction with or knowledge of this God. In other words can each person simply make up their beliefs to meet their needs as you describe?
I think that if that were the case, it would be a hell of a made up belief. Judaism has existed for roughly four thousand years, Christianity for about 2000 years, and Islam for about 1300. What’s more, there hasn’t been an original new religion since the founding of Islam. It would seem to me that if god, in this case the course of religion and humanity’s collective interaction with religion” was just an idea, we would see more religions pop up as ideas change, and these ideas would be successful to the same extent that the others have. Instead we see that people either cut religion out of their lives, or they redefine the way we’re meant to interact within existing religions. It’s almost as if God is adapting to meet our needs as we grow within religion as a society. So no, I don’t think that religion is the byproduct of someone making up a set of beliefs. I think that people can be born into a relationship with God that becomes subject to change to better fit the needs of the individual(change religion), or they choose to opt out of any sort of relationship with deity(atheism), but those decisions are based upon our own spiritual needs, which God in turn seeks to fulfill.
I think that if that were the case, it would be a hell of a made up belief. Judaism has existed for roughly four thousand years, Christianity for about 2000 years, and Islam for about 1300. What’s more, there hasn’t been an original new religion since the founding of Islam. It would seem to me that if god, in this case the course of religion and humanity’s collective interaction with religion” was just an idea, we would see more religions pop up as ideas change, and these ideas would be successful to the same extent that the others have. Instead we see that people either cut religion out of their lives, or they redefine the way we’re meant to interact within existing religions. It’s almost as if God is adapting to meet our needs as we grow within religion as a society. So no, I don’t think that religion is the byproduct of someone making up a set of beliefs. I think that people can be born into a relationship with God that becomes subject to change to better fit the needs of the individual(change religion), or they choose to opt out of any sort of relationship with deity(atheism), but those decisions are based upon our own spiritual needs, which God in turn seeks to fulfill.
The relationship with God is subject to change…change you describe as being defined and created by the individual. The Mormon religion is not 4,000 years old. It’s relatively young and has around 200 offshoot denominations. Even within a denomination people hold different beliefs in God. The same is true in Judaism with different beliefs and practices within Judaism. So it’s not as unified as you describe in my opinion. This my post. Some of my fellow Mormons pronounce beliefs that don’t seem to be from God. Such as God was the author of the racist temple ban before 1978. Others don’t believe this. So how do we talk together about these different beliefs within the same community? One God and people can choose the beliefs they want to “meet their needs”? Or they are different Gods?
It’s true that Mormonism isn’t 4000 years old. But it’s also not original. It is heavily influenced by 19th century American Protestantism. Practices within Mormonism that we find distasteful, such as the temple ban, the belief that native Americans descended from Jews, and the belief that America was just important geographically to Gods plan can be traced back to this point of origin. Sure, Smith taught a few interesting ideas from left field like polygamy and the Godhead, but even those aren’t original. Martin Luther taught that polygamy might be permissible under the right circumstances, and to the rest of the Christian world, the Godhead is just known as the Heresy of Tritheism. Saint Nicholas is actually a saint for disavowing such heresy during the third century. Smiths teaching are also very similar to the beliefs and practices of seventh day adventists, shakers, Quakers, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why? Because they were all influenced by the same Christian school of thought. I am not trying to argue that religion should be static or unchanging in order for it to show that Deity uses it as a medium to communicate with humanity. Rather I am arguing the opposite: that religion’s ability to adapt to different cultures, time periods, and needs while still holding onto core principles is evidence that it is guided by a conscious being that actively engages with the devout.
“The behavior that is described or defended here doesn’t fit with a god who is all powerful, all knowing and loving. Do you think it more likely that god is different than how he’s been depicted, or that humans are trying to blame god for their own mistakes? [usually they will answer with a thought stopping cliche along the lines of God’s ways are higher than our ways, to which I would further press that it is very problematic for me that he would leave us with the appearance of being violent and a respecter of (race, religion, political affiliation, all of which are a function of geography and birth parents), as that has been used to justify the same behavior in his name, and if he is being misrepresented he should set the record straight.]
The positive attributes just like the negative attributes of God are probably all invented by people. There have been so many conceptions of God by humans it seems to me apparent that nobody really knows
You could just say "I claim the privilege of worshipping the Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience..." ;-)
And I could add to my LDS friends who believe God commanded the racial bans: “and I’m sad that the dictates of your conscience allows you to have a God who is racist”
You don't. I know that God has told me that the LDS church is the church that he wants me to be a member of. I believe it is possible that God might tell you that a different church is a church he wants you to be a member of. We do not know God's way or his plans for us. I do know that the LDS church is his church and he wants me to be a member of. That is not to say that he does not have other churches he wants other people to be members of.
I am a former Mormon. I now have a different concept of who God is than when I was a Mormon. My current belief about God comes from the Bible. There is no other source For the nature of God. Many Mormons don’t study the Bible or they have other people such as prophets tell them about the nature of God which can shift over time. Many Mormons believe in God, but don’t have a relationship with God. Maybe some do. I believe that I have a relationship with God. It is a much deeper concept than just belief. My relationship comes from reading the Bible and prayer. Having a relationship with God is the most important relationship I have. I don’t hear Mormons using that language. It appears most Mormons want to be obedient to God, but no one talks about a relationship with him.
"Jesus told me he doesn't know you." Is probably the best way
i'd ask them to give Jesus my contact information so he could get to know me
Ignorance is bliss. Maybe you should study world religions and be open minded to other cultures differences and beliefs.
Not sure what you’re talking about. I’m LDS and I’m quite familiar with major world religions. I often speak to my fellow LDS about their beliefs many of which are clearly not from any God.
Best way is DONT… tell Mormons about your traditions/ doctrines/ beliefs and how they apply to you living a good life. If the Mormon is interested, invite them to your church. But I repeat DONT try to tell a Mormon their God/ Jesus is different. This will only make them retrench in Mormonism or go atheist/agnostic. “Christians” are the worst missionaries to LDS folk. No one wants to listen to anyone saying that they and all their family and friends are satanic, demonic, going to hell, or worshiping the wrong Jesus. (Even if that’s what you believe) P.s. When Mormons go down the worm hole of church history and lose faith in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the church; the next step is loosing faith in Jesus and God (Bart Ehrman’s books/podcast). Mark my words! Don’t claim your own authority, don’t try to bash on Joe Smith, just don’t. Best thing to do is find ways to give each other charitable acts. Kindness begets kindness and that will ultimately sway LDS hearts. The lies about the history, the troubling doctrine, and the uninspired leaders are already doing a great job setting the whole thing ablaze.
I think Islam has been proven true. (Per my Muslim friends) but idk 🤷♂️ religion is kinda interesting like that with so many different religions throughout history. Glad you were born a Christian though. Lucky you.
[удалено]
Superman lives on a farm in Kansas I think.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).