That seems to what a number of critics online are referring to when they call the LDS Church a “high demand religion”. I’ve heard that now a number of times.
Not sure what you mean by “this ridiculous argument”. That there would be a creator God? What is so ridiculous about that?
Well, when people talk about the Mormon church being a "high demand religion," I think they're simply being dramatic. I mean, it's only a tenth of your income, a lifetime of service, and a wardrobe of silly/sacred underwear. These aren't demands, they're more like suggestions... really, really strong suggestion that are tied to your eternal salvation and your family.
Of course, the idea of a creator Mormon God isn't ridiculous. It's perfectly reasonable. What could possibly be more logical than an all-powerful being who created the entire universe but is also deeply concerned with your underwear and whether you drink coffee? It all just makes perfect sense. And as a bonus, this Mormon God will occasionally help you find your car keys. Just don't make this Mormon God angry, you wouldn't like him when he's angry.
He has to make this ridiculous argument to maintain his belief that we’re not practicing Mormons because it’s “too difficult to live the law.”
That seems to what a number of critics online are referring to when they call the LDS Church a “high demand religion”. I’ve heard that now a number of times.
Not sure what you mean by “this ridiculous argument”. That there would be a creator God? What is so ridiculous about that?
Regards,
MG
Bearing in mind the characteristics of the various gods that people believe in, it may be no more ridiculous than any other.
However, it could also be argued that your decision to believe in a creator god simply places a restriction - a filter - on gods that you are willing to consider as being valid/"true"/the real deal.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
That seems to what a number of critics online are referring to when they call the LDS Church a “high demand religion”. I’ve heard that now a number of times.
Not sure what you mean by “this ridiculous argument”. That there would be a creator God? What is so ridiculous about that?
Regards,
MG
Bearing in mind the characteristics of the various gods that people believe in, it may be no more ridiculous than any other.
However, it could also be argued that your decision to believe in a creator god simply places a restriction - a filter - on gods that you are willing to consider as being valid/"true"/the real deal.
If you were to believe in God, what would that God be? What could you get on board with? Apparently a God that we are ‘of the same nature/race/origins’ doesn’t appeal to you. In other words, a God that we have some kind of connection or relationship with. How would you picture and/or conceive God to be if you were to believe?
Bearing in mind the characteristics of the various gods that people believe in, it may be no more ridiculous than any other.
However, it could also be argued that your decision to believe in a creator god simply places a restriction - a filter - on gods that you are willing to consider as being valid/"true"/the real deal.
If you were to believe in God, what would that God be? What could you get on board with? Apparently a God that we are ‘of the same nature/race/origins’ doesn’t appeal to you. In other words, a God that we have some kind of connection or relationship with. How would you picture and/or conceive God to be if you were to believe?
Regards,
MG
I don't think that this is a fruitful exercise or game. I think your questions have it backwards - as if I could design a god to my liking, and somehow it would materialize - or not
But for the sake of argument, let's just say that in the same way as you choose to believe in a creator god, to the extent that I think I have a choice (and I'm not convinced that I do) I choose to believe in none, due to lack of convincing evidence. None of the gods I've heard of - including yours - appeal to me.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
If you were to believe in God, what would that God be? What could you get on board with? Apparently a God that we are ‘of the same nature/race/origins’ doesn’t appeal to you. In other words, a God that we have some kind of connection or relationship with. How would you picture and/or conceive God to be if you were to believe?
Regards,
MG
I don't think that this is a fruitful exercise or game. I think your questions have it backwards - as if I could design a god to my liking, and somehow it would materialize - or not
But for the sake of argument, let's just say that in the same way as you choose to believe in a creator god, to the extent that I think I have a choice (and I'm not convinced that I do) I choose to believe in none, due to lack of convincing evidence. None of the gods I've heard of - including yours - appeal to me.
OK. That helps. What are your thoughts in regards to the Anthropic principle or the Goldilocks effect? Fine tuned universe. Did we just get lucky? If there is a god…why is that god remaining completely hidden?
I don't think that this is a fruitful exercise or game. I think your questions have it backwards - as if I could design a god to my liking, and somehow it would materialize - or not
But for the sake of argument, let's just say that in the same way as you choose to believe in a creator god, to the extent that I think I have a choice (and I'm not convinced that I do) I choose to believe in none, due to lack of convincing evidence. None of the gods I've heard of - including yours - appeal to me.
OK. That helps. What are your thoughts in regards to the Anthropic principle or the Goldilocks effect? Fine tuned universe. Did we just get lucky? If there is a god…why is that god remaining completely hidden?
Regards,
MG
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
What percent of the observable universe do you think is hospitable for humanoid life?
OK. That helps. What are your thoughts in regards to the Anthropic principle or the Goldilocks effect? Fine tuned universe. Did we just get lucky? If there is a god…why is that god remaining completely hidden?
Regards,
MG
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
There are limits to the analogy when applied to the universe and life (complex systems). It’s kind of a cute analogy though. The universe isn’t a passive, unchanging “hole”. It’s a complex and dynamic system governed by intricate laws. Those laws allow for the evolution of conscious life. The analogy is too simplistic to score enough points to win the day.
I take it you don’t believe in a creator God. A personal God. That seems to be fashionable here.
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
There are limits to the analogy when applied to the universe and life (complex systems). It’s kind of a cute analogy though. The universe isn’t a passive, unchanging “hole”. It’s a complex and dynamic system governed by intricate laws. Those laws allow for the evolution of conscious life. The analogy is too simplistic to score enough points to win the day.
I take it you don’t believe in a creator God. A personal God. That seems to be fashionable here.
Regards,
MG
I’d be a little more convinced if 99.999 percent of the observable universe wasn’t so clearly incompatible with this life.
Have you ever tried to do back of the envelope calculations about how long it takes to travel between solar systems? Or to send messages? Even if physical Mormon Gods exist and get their own planets, they’re all on islands separated by the limitations of the cosmos.
The standard Christian God who doesn’t have to obey the laws of the universe (because he made them) makes much more sense.
I don't think that this is a fruitful exercise or game. I think your questions have it backwards - as if I could design a god to my liking, and somehow it would materialize - or not
But for the sake of argument, let's just say that in the same way as you choose to believe in a creator god, to the extent that I think I have a choice (and I'm not convinced that I do) I choose to believe in none, due to lack of convincing evidence. None of the gods I've heard of - including yours - appeal to me.
OK. That helps. What are your thoughts in regards to the Anthropic principle or the Goldilocks effect? Fine tuned universe. Did we just get lucky? If there is a god…why is that god remaining completely hidden?
Regards,
MG
It wasn't intended to "help", whatever you mean by that.
I don't believe that either of us is equipped to debate these issues.
ETA: It's possible that you are - I'm not.
Based on previous discussions here on these topics, some board members have the required knowledge and mental horsepower. It doesn't make me happy to admit it, but I recognize my limitations.
Last edited by malkie on Sat Aug 30, 2025 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Getting back to the topic, I found this part of Southerton's review of Perego very helpful in understanding how mopologists don't tell the truth:
Misleading science
In my view the lowest point of the interview is when Perego exploits his position of trust in the LDS community to mislead. The most powerful tools we have today to trace the ancestry of human populations are whole genome studies. This is the type of analysis that all modern DNA genealogy companies use in order to reveal our ancestral origins. When human populations are separated from each other for many thousands of years, each population accumulates tens of thousands of DNA changes that are unique to each population. It is easy, for example, to distinguish the genomic DNA of Middle Eastern populations from Native American populations because they have been separated from each other for at least 30,000 years.
Perego is well aware of this technology and he knows the genomic DNA of thousands of Native Americans has been tested and none have been found to carry pre-Columbian Jewish ancestry. But in order to help believing Mormons deal with this information Perego exaggerates a “weakness” in the technology. While we all have about 1000 ancestors going back 10 generations, each of us are likely to only carry DNA derived from about 100 of those ancestors. It’s a curious quirk of genetics that we don’t carry DNA from many of our ancestors. Perego uses this fact to insinuate that whole genome studies have important limitations for detecting ancestry. But Perego is telling a half truth.
While it is true that particular ancestral DNA can disappear in an individual’s genome, it is extremely unlikely that it will disappear in the genomes of a population of related people in which hundreds or thousands of individuals have been tested. While some ancestral DNA may not be found in a single member of the population, it will almost certainly be found in other individuals in the same populations. Perego portrays himself as a population geneticist so he ought to know this simple principle of population genetics. But he chose to mislead his listeners by confusing the genetics of the individual with the genetics of the population. And I’m meant to be the dumb plant scientist who doesn’t know anything about population genetics (I have in fact published several scientific papers in the field of forest tree population genetics).
