Conscientious Alternative to Mormonism

[_KevinSim]

Someone controlled by conscience who is honest and upright would clearly see those issues for what they are. None of those issues have anything to do with whether God
exists or not so I can only assume you would remain a believer in God. Hence Christianity is a conscientious alternative to Mormonism.

What does Christianity teach about the souls of those that don't accept Jesus' atonement in their lives? What is the eternal fate of those souls?

And what does Christianity teach about the omnipotence of God? I've heard that Christianity teaches that God took us from not existing to existing, that God created us out of nothing. Does Christianity teach that God also has the power to take us from existing to not existing, to cause us to cease to exist?

[_Nightlion]

Oh, well then, Zion is the obvious choice. Zion would be the original Mormonism done right. That has never even been attempted yet. Wont be by the LDS Church ever.

Nightlion, sounds interesting. Why should I come to the conclusion that the Zion you describe would be any improvement over the LDS Church?

You are only kidding, right? The LDS Church is the antithesis of Zion. It is apostate to Zion.
Sanctimonious BS is LDS. It is to Zion what the Sadducees were to Christ. Pure Hypocrisy.

In Zion every heart has been cleansed. Every one stands independently before the Lord. All are taught of god. All have the best interests of the neighbor uppermost in their minds. These seek out ways to serve without letting the left hand know what the right hand doeth.

Every mind in Zion has been quickened by the power of God and collectively they are a glory to behold. The elements under their feet are sanctified. It is a holy place, where Christ is want to be.

The LDS Church is soon to get the back of the Lord's hand to scour the pollutions from off the land he wants to sanctify. Not even Joseph Smith could see Zion for the GEEEEEEntiles.

#
D&C 76: 10
10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man.

[_KevinSim]

What is Mormonism doing to insure that chocolate and sex are preserved forever?

Well, chocolate is good indeed (as long as it's dark chocolate), so Mormonism would have to insure that it is preserved forever, but I'm not so sure sex passes muster. I'll ask Thomas Monson next time I see him what the LDS Church is doing to insure the preservation of chocolate.

[_Themis]

If the LDS version of God really does exist, then with He and us working on these two problems (and all the other implied problems), we can clearly eventually resolve them.

If they really are problems for God then you clearly cannot know they can be resolved.

If the LDS version of God doesn't actually exist, then the job of solving all those problems falls on us. And we'd better get started on them.

Which means that LDS are wasting time and effort on things that do not help resolve many of the problems we face now and into the future. I think the evidence clearly shows the church is not true, so the conscientious alternative is to not to do temple work, but help the poor and needy. To help the world be a better safer place for myself, my children, and everyone else. LDS do not do well on things like global warming, and as far as heat death, it will be scientific discovery that will solve it, if that is even possible. I am not suggest ing though that LDS do not do good in this world. They do, more then some, but much less then many if the church is not really true.

[_Euthyphro]

Kevin, you keep using the word conscientious but I do not think it means what you think it means. Conscientious means being governed by or conforming to the dictates of conscience, not doing the most good that lasts forever. I haven't read all eight of the previous pages in this thread, but I'd like to know whether you think I, an agnostic, have a conscience. Would it interest you to know that my parting with the church was about a choice between conscience and obedience?

What does Christianity teach about the souls of those that don't accept Jesus' atonement in their lives? What is the eternal fate of those souls?

Actually, I would love it if you would explain that atonement thing. To me it's a solution in search of a problem. The trouble is that the problem atonement solves isn't at all clear, and neither really is how atonement is the solution.

And what does Christianity teach about the omnipotence of God? I've heard that Christianity teaches that God took us from not existing to existing, that God created us out of nothing. Does Christianity teach that God also has the power to take us from existing to not existing, to cause us to cease to exist?

I suspect that by Christianity you mean Mormonism, and if you look carefully you won't find much that supports any of those ideas, but nevermind that. Why don't you tell us which of these things you believe and we'll discuss that?

While you're explaining things I'd like to know why you're so concerned about things eternal. To the unchurched such matters are subordinate to the realm of the practical. We don't use terms like eternal or infinity, preferring the slightly less grand and romantic phrases to describe human affairs. Perpetual, enduring, free or indefinite are good alternatives, suggesting systems that continue but without assuming the foreverness for which you seem to yearn.

Is it possible, Kevin, that some of these problems you're worried about aren't really problems at all? Buddhism is concerned with escaping samsara. Does that problem also worry you or do you just have the Christian issues on your radar? What makes you so sure these problems are really real?

Is it possible that some of these problems really shouldn't be keeping you awake at night?

Take the expansion of the universe you mentioned. That's this year's model of the universe. I remember not too long ago reading that cosmologists believed the universe will eventually do the opposite thing and begin contracting back to a big crunch. Either way, isn't the destruction of the human race by any one of millions of black swans more likely to end us before universal fizzling? And of these possibilities, what percentage would you guess we might be able to imagine in our wildest dreams? And, even if tackling the death of the universe should be a top priority, don't you think the eons of time we have before us might be enough to sort out what to do? Getting started right now you say? I think I'll have a beer and wait for cosmologists and physicists to firm up that grand unified theory, detect a Higgs boson, conjure up some dark matter, build a better quantum computer, develop faster-than-light communication with quantum entanglement, or figure out how to traverse universes in the multiverse. In short it's too soon to solve the great problem of the universe because we don't even really know if there is one.

[_beastie]

Kevin -

I think your question is a bit misleading. You seem to be forming a hypothetical in which Mormonism isn't true, and people responded based on that hypothetical. Yet your subsequent answers reveal that your hypothetical apparently still includes the truth of certain LDS teachings.

I think you should rephrase your hypothetical and outline the LDS or general theistic teachings your proposal still accepts as true.

[_KevinSim]

Which good things? You say this all the time! Which "good things" are capable of lasting forever? How does Mormonism insure it?

Since I am a devout Latter-day Saint I believe that life spent in the service of our fellow beings is a good thing that is "capable of lasting forever," and Mormonism insures it because God insures it, and God is capable of preserving it.

My point has been that if Mormonism isn't true, if the LDS God isn't capable of preserving our service-filled lives endlessly, then our consciences still should motivate us to work toward the preservation, forever, of some good things. Are you asking which things are those good things? My answer is that in that case it doesn't matter. They could be any things, as long as they are good.

In fact, I'd go so far as say that our consciences should motivate us to work toward the eternal preservation of some good things whether or not it's possible to preserve some good things. We owe it to future generations of humanity to at least try to preserve some good things, even if the chances that we will succeed are extremely slim.

[_KevinSim]

PS Nothing lasts forever, trying to make something last forever causes problems.

In the words of one of my favorite movies, as Westley and Buttercup prepare to enter the Fire Swamp the latter says, "We'll never survive," and the former replies, "Nonsense; you're only saying that because nobody ever has."

The fact that nobody has ever found a way to make something last forever is hardly any reason to stop trying to find a way. If humanity stopped trying to find ways to do things just because it had never been done before, or even because well thought out theories predicted it couldn't be done, then we'd never have invented agriculture, we'd never have developed language, we'd never have invented the wheel, we'd never have harnessed electricity, we'd never have built an airplane, we'd never have formed the United Nations.

Ambitious goals are worth fighting for, sometimes regardless of the chances that they'll succeed.

Trying to control the future
is like trying to take the master carpenter's place.
When you handle the master carpenter's tools,
chances are that you'll cut your hand.
Tao Te Ching

So our choices are to not try to control the future, and therefore insure that nothing good will last forever, or to try to control the future and cut our hand. I'd choose cutting my hand any day.

[_KevinSim]

Do you see how self-centered that is?

Self-centered?! Lulu, how can you say self-centered?

I'm convinced that there are many things in a solitary life that can be called good, but when I think of good I typically think of something done by one (or more) person for the service of another person. Or even for the service of animals, perhaps. It might even be determined that it's a good thing to take good care of the planet, to go green! So how can you call the demands of my conscience that I do good self-centered? Doing good has the potential for being pretty much as little self-centered as possible.

[_KevinSim]

You've been given more than adequate responses to your question. The fact that you still refuse to accept these reasonable alternatives means that you are simply not able, at this point in your life, to accept that such alternatives exist.

Beastie, point me to one single post someone's made explaining an alternative to Mormonism that involves working toward preserving forever some good things. When you have done that, then you will have shown me that I've "been given more than adequate responses to" my question. If an alternative doesn't work toward the preservation, forever, of some good things, then how can it really be conscientious?