Conscientious Alternative to Mormonism

[_KevinSim]

I began this thread with the suspicion that any real conscientious alternative to Mormonism would have to involve a deity of some form, so I'm not going to dispute your assertion that theism is important. Although I would be very interested in anybody's comprehensive answer to my question that didn't involve the existence of God.

A robust and thoughtful atheism, buttressed with an understanding in history, philosophy, the social and natural sciences.

Is that comprehensive?

In a previous post I said that for me God is that being that will preserve forever some good things. MrStakhanovite, will your "robust and thoughtful atheism" preserve forever some good things?

[_SteelHead]

Which will prove more valuable to mankind in the long run, Mormonism or the theory or relativity?

[_KevinSim]

But why would anyone conclude that Christianity is a conscientious alternative to Mormonism?

I did. And look what it did for me. Based on my avatars, I get better looking all the time.

You did? You concluded that Christianity is a conscientious alternative to Mormonism? Is that what you meant?

I didn't ask you if you did, I asked you why you would conclude that.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I did. And look what it did for me. Based on my avatars, I get better looking all the time.

You did? You concluded that Christianity is a conscientious alternative to Mormonism? Is that what you meant?

I didn't ask you if you did, I asked you why you would conclude that.

Jeezuz man! Reach back and pull the garmies outta your butt crack! He was JOKING.

[_KevinSim]

Which will prove more valuable to mankind in the long run, Mormonism or the theory or relativity?

Nobody on this thread seems to know. I've been trying for some time to get someone to post an explanation why anything would be a conscientious improvement over Mormonism, and nobody's given me anything that offers a long-term solution to humanity's serious problems.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Is that comprehensive?

To be honest, you’ve got to learn to ask better questions before you worry about a worldview being comprehensive (and Mormonism is far far from being comprehensive in any meaningful sense). For example, you need to make the distinction between normative ethics ( is it moral to do X?) and meta-ethics (does a objective moral good even exist?).

With normative ethics, questions about God is largely irrelevant, you don’t need God to do utilitarian or Kantian ethics. If you want to know if an objective good/evil can exist in the absence of God, then your question has more to do with metaphysics than morality.

In a previous post I said that for me God is that being that will preserve forever some good things.

Can something even endure or perdure forever? Does forever mean an infinite time span or does it mean just until time runs down? What good things need to exist forever, and what mode of existence are we speaking about? Can we equate the existence of a concrete real thing with the existence had by an abstract object that is a-causal?

MrStakhanovite, will your "robust and thoughtful atheism" preserve forever some good things?

Yup.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Is it possible to be a Christian if one strives to follow the humanitarian example of Christ while rejecting the supernatural elements of the Christ myth?

I (don't) think so. To be a Christian means that one agrees, believes, and embraces that Jesus is God. Can't get more supernatural than that.

Fair enough, and thanks. Concise answers are so refreshing.

How do you know the supernatural elements of the Christ narrative weren’t added for the benefit of those people who can’t understand that being nice to each other is its own reward?

How do you know they weren't added for other, less altruistic reasons?

[_LDSToronto]

Kevin, you clearly mean something by the term, "conscientious alternative" to Mormonism. I, and I'm sure others, are having difficulty understanding what you mean by this term. Your responses indicate that no one is addressing the question.

Please take a moment to elaborate on the term "conscientious alternative" and perhaps we can provide you with better answers.

H.

[_Drifting]

Which will prove more valuable to mankind in the long run, Mormonism or the theory or relativity?

Nobody on this thread seems to know. I've been trying for some time to get someone to post an explanation why anything would be a conscientious improvement over Mormonism, and nobody's given me anything that offers a long-term solution to humanity's serious problems.

Actually, you haven't.

Here is what you asked:

I've read posts by a lot of people who scoff at the idea that anyone in their right mind would take seriously the claims of the LDS Church. If the LDS Church really is so bad, then what is the conscientious alternative to it? If believing God lives and that God has chosen Monson as His spokesman to the world is really such a bad idea, then what should people with a conscience do instead?

No mention of humanity's serious problems (whatever you mean by those). In stead you ask what is the alternative to the claims of the LDS Church and you have been given a plethora of reasonable responses. I understand why you don't like them, but don't try and say they don't answer your question.

Now returning to your additional point about humanity's serious problems. You can help us by identifying what you think those are and how you believe Mormonism mitigates them...

[_Hoops]

How do you know the supernatural elements of the Christ narrative weren’t added for the benefit of those people who can’t understand that being nice to each other is its own reward?

How do you know they weren't added for other, less altruistic reasons?

That's an entirely different question. Which is fine, of course. But you asked if one can be a "Christian" and not believe that God has intervened in His creation (supernatural). I say "no" for several reasons.

At the risk of disrupting Kevin's genuine lineof questions... I would say, first, that you've added a new element to the equation. Rewards. So are we talking about being a Christian? Or getting rewards? Because if it's the latter, then we're on to something else.

But to your question. It would seem reasonable to me that if what you described did occur, we would have competing writings that would explicitly and completely deny the supernatural elements of scripture.

Now if you're intention is to parse my words as a rhetorical device to gain some sort of advantage, don't bother. But that's a bit of my thinking.