Episode 108b: Seth and his father, Allen Part 2

Fair enough. So you reject the attitude that what is said in the bible should be binding on everyone. I just get the feeling that if you had your way, you would like to have your scientific views imposed upon everyone. If you would have your way, you would get rid of God all together because for you there is no use for God, so there is no reason for anyone to find any use for a belief in God.

I respect you and I appreciate the podcast. You made a lot of good arguments and questions. I think my main issue was just your tone, which to me reflected a lot of disdain and ridicule for pretty much anything Allen said. I don’t know if there are winners and losers in these conversations, but for me the tone hurts whether you have the better argument or not.

I like this comment as well. For some reason when someone makes an argument against what someone believes it always comes across as having a bad “tone.” I wouldn’t worry about this too much. No matter how much you try your “tone” will be called into question because you are challenging some deeply held beliefs. This is something that always comes up among skeptics.

One thing I would like to reiterate is the importance of science as a method. The great thing about science is that we straightforwardly acknowledge that our knowledge is incomplete, and that what we understand about the world may well be proven false in the future. Scrutiny is the hallmark of scientific investigation and many people have made fine careers of fundamentally changing our understanding of the world.

The problem with Mormonism is that it cannot accommodate this sort of change without admitting that (God-inspired) prophets were wrong. To get around this awkward dilemma, the church generally takes a “no official stance” position without ever explicitly refuting what past prophets have said, even if we are quite certain they were wrong (men actually did walk on the moon). The apologist argument goes further that prophets are fallible and only sometimes speak as a prophet, but this seems entirely at odds with the 14 fundamentals and what is actually preached.

I would personally be much more sympathetic to religion in general if it worked in the way Michael Gonda says. Science discovers something and then religion adapts to this to incorporate the new data. However, at least in Mormonism, this does not happen. At best the church retreats to ambiguity and “we’ll never know.”

Even in liberal religions, however, this is problematic. If you have simply a God-of-the-gaps argument then as our scientific understanding increases God is increasingly painted into smaller and smaller corners. The only saving grace is that God inhabits some sphere which science can never reach, but this argument is so tenuous, because we have no idea how science will advance, what instruments will be developed, etc.

I think the prior poster confused blood atonement with the Adam/God theory. Blood atonement was taught in the Tabernacle and in the JOD and so forth. The Adam/God theory is what people think of as having been taught at the veil, but now is a defunct doctrine of the church.

The whole “it is arrogant to tell God what he can and cannot do” apologetic is tired, worn out, and frankly ridiculous.

God isn’t doing or saying a damned thing. Rather, he is, if the religionists can be believed, appearing to various people in secret and granting to them the right and power to stand up and tell the rest of us what to do. At least, that’s what 10,000 religious con-men down through the ages have claimed. With such a track record as, like I mentioned in the podcast, almost literally the oldest con in the book, it is nothing if not prudent for us to develop our own standards for what a truly credible such claimant would say if God actually existed and thought it reasonable to operate this way.

As far as homosexuality goes, you are flat out wrong. You know full well that homosexuals are required by the church to accept a far higher, more onerous burden of chastity than heterosexuals are. They not only may not have sex with the people they are attracted to, they are not allowed to hug and kiss, and cuddle with them, or date them, either. Ever. As in, not now, not next year, not someday, not ever, for all eternity.

Every heterosexual, however unlucky in finding a mate they may thus far have been, is at least permitted by the church to date members of the opposite sex, hold hands, attend ward functions with them as a date, cuddle, hug and kiss, and anticipate the day when they will finally be married and allowed to have sex with them.

Or are you really claiming that it would be OK by the church for a gay dude to bring another gay dude to the ward dance, cuddle up with him, hold hands, and kiss him? You absolutely know as well as I do that this would never fly.

In other words, you know as well as I do that the church’s attitude towards homosexuality is not limited strictly to homosexual sex acts alone. It is the very nature of their attraction which is despised and maligned, and forbidden – not just whether they actually come into contact with each others genitals.

@Allen – “If statements by LDS prophets are shown by science or by historians or by the scriptures to be wrong, I assume the GA are speaking their own mind and not the mind of God.” Why assume that? Why not assume the scientists are minions of Satan and out to trick you? Why don’t you assume the Pope is correct whenever he says something not in conflict with science? I don’t understand your epistemology at all. Why assume the prophets have anything revealed to them when they are so consistently incorrect? I have no illusions you will agree with me, but I find it amazing you can so easily severe the words of a prophet, spoken as a prophet, taught as doctrine, practiced and believed by millions, etc., and yet still believe in what is left over. Where does this end for you? Do you believe the scientific consensus that there were no elephants, horses, steel, etc in the America’s during BoM times? Do you just scribble those parts of the BoM out – but believe the rest – assuming that Alma, Moroni, and Nephi were all just “speaking their own mind” when they wrote those things in the scripture? Why don’t all the contradictions lead you to a conclusion?

As for my comments regarding what God should or shouldn’t give revelation on as being “arrogant” – I’m starting from the assumption that if Mormonism is true then God loves us and speaks through prophets, tailoring the message for our day. As I understand your belief, it sounds like you agree. Keep in mind that due to the internet and electronic media NOW (or the last few years) is really the first time in history that God has had a direct mouthpiece through whom he can speak and reach the entire world. We have a free country, the church has lots of money, tens of thousands of missionaries going out every year, and thanks to modern agriculture we don’t have to spend our time weeding or foraging for food. People are much more literate and much better educated than any time in human history, and we’re living longer, better lives. This is really the perfect set up for God to knock one out of the park, give us some nice big truth and help us as members share it with the world.

Yet God has either stopped talking to Mormon prophets or has decided that the number of earrings a woman wears is among the most important things he can say, more important than keeping people in the church. I don’t think that is arrogance, I think that is an observation given the lack of any revelation on numerous subjects that are shredding the church. (Including evolution btw) God doesn’t care. All he would have to do is whisper to Pres. Monson “tell everyone in GC that they shouldn’t leave an otherwise good marriage over a disbelieving spouse.” Is that so hard? Yet he doesn’t, and thousands of marriages a year are being affected, and lots of families are being torn apart. Mormon Expression wouldn’t even exist were it not for this lack of revelation. Is it arrogant to assume that God should care that families are being destroyed in his name? I don’t think so. But then again God literally burned and killed families in the scriptures for not believing in him and Jesus did tell us in Luke 12:53 that he was totally cool with dividing families so I guess I should expect that by now.

How is it not infinitely more arrogant for the church to continue printing books like the current OT CES manual that claims evolution is false? You can’t simply say this is “a” prophet speaking his own mind because the church has ratified it and correlated it and reprinted it.

The idea that the church is neutral towards evoltion – is probably the worst apologetic argument of all time. Even if true, which it isn’t, it would be

It is laughable on two fronts. First, there are numerous ways, directly and indirectly, that the church teaches evolution is false. It directly and blatantly attacks evoltuion as false in the manual I referenced above, even naming Darwin himself, and stating that there is a gap between organic evolution and the truth of the gospel that cannot be bridged. It would be one thing if this were said by a prophet or a GC on a single occasion. But as the church defines doctrine it is the consistent message put out in officially printed materials. I was taught in a college level CES program, by a BYU PhD insitute director, that organic evolution is false. Keep in mind this was in a church building, in an official church course, taught by a man on church payroll, and teaching straight out of the manual that is produced by the church. I was also taught by GAs as that evolution was false, including Bruce R. McConkie and Boyd K Packer. I was taught by my parents that evolution was false in FHE lessons. The scriptures and the bible dictionary both teach there was no death before the fall, which precludes evoltion since humans had to have evolved from other life which would have died previously to our existence. It also makes no sense that we, hominids, would be made in God’s image and likeness if we evolved from other species on earth. Where did God’s identical hominid body come from? The contradictions with Mormonism run extremely deep. The fact that you’ve reconciled it in your own mind doesn’t mean anything for what the church’s position is on the subject.

On the second front, let’s assume you are correct and the church is neutral on evolution – how can the church possibly be neutral on evolution? Isn’t this the explanation of human origins? To say the church is neutral on our own origins is to admit its failure as a religion. If, as you assert, the church is unwilling or incapable of even taking a position on whether or not we evolved then it has no value to me as a moral guide. Isn’t it discouraging to you, as a someone who knows evolution is true, to see this organization so reluctant to accept or admit the truth of it, and see so many members deny and ignore its truth? My own life has vastly improved because of a knowledge of evolution. I have a much better and healthier understanding of my body and proper diet after understanding evolution. For the church to be “neutral” on something as fundamental as our origins is totally unacceptable. I don’t understand how GAs can presume to know and teach specifics about what we should do – like whether men should get vasectomies – and yet be “neutral” toward something as basic as our origins. What a joke. Furthermore, it is the obligation of the church, as an organization that is supposedly dedicated to truth, to embrace truth wherever it finds it. Isn’t this what Hinckley taught, bring your truth to us? Isn’t it also what Joseph Smith taught, that at its core Mormonism was acceptance of truth in any form?