Religous debates and questions

This is a place for all matters religous. All religious ideas, from shamanism to established churches are fair game for discussion. Usual BBST rules apply, try to maintain respect for each others views, even when critising them, and no mocking etc.

I'll get the ball rolling with a nice open general question that's hopefully not contentous (much) - if life of any sort is discovered on other planets does it strengthen the notion of a creator God or weaken it?

To us (Mormons) it would either be the same or strengthened. We openly teach that other galaxies and planets were created and there is a good chance He put life forms on them.

It really depends on the different religious groups' teachings.

So if for arguments sake Lorient inteliigent life was discovered on other planet- do Mormons expect them to know about the same God you do? And to have a similar religion?

Im not entirely sure Petty. Possibly, but I do not know the official LDS standpoint on that.

Where does the Mormon church stand on science in general? I have no idea as beyond the general founding story I know little about your beliefs- is it an all science is evil sort of religion, a pick and mix (like the Catholics) or what?

We accept almost all science, and all proven science. The only things that I have heard of that we do not agree with are human evolution, and The Big Bang, but those are only theories. Everything else is generally accepted, but individual church members may have their own ideas or opinions in regards to certain theories or facts, such as how they came about.

If the Mormon church accepts science, then it should realize that the notion of absolute proof doesn't really exist in science, but that for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory (as evolution has) it must have the support of evidence from many experiments by different researchers, essentially bringing it as close to "proof" as science can get. (See more: theories vs. facts).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This is a place for all matters religous .... try to maintain respect for each others views, even when critising them, and no mocking etc.

What? Are you trtying to exclude me from the discussions?

Eldo, as I have said before, I am not the spokesperson for the LDS church. I do not know EVERYTHING about all our doctrines. All I know is that really the only known "theories" we generally (I do not know the Church's official standpoint) don't accept are the Big Bang and human evolution.


This is my own personal question: do we know that humans evolved from apes? Or could a portion of the populous simply have devolved?
I mean, there may have been a lot of incest, and just look at what happened to the Habsburgs

Lorient Avandi wrote:Eldo, as I have said before, I am not the spokesperson for the LDS church. I do not know EVERYTHING about all our doctrines. All I know is that really the only known "theories" we generally (I do not know the Church's official standpoint) don't accept are the Big Bang and human evolution.

Fair enough. I'm rather curious as to what you think, personally, as well, but you don't need to go into that if you don't want to, of course.

This is my own personal question: do we know that humans evolved from apes? Or could a portion of the populous simply have devolved?

Are you saying that you think humans are worse off than our hominid predecessors? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

I meant, could a portion of the human race have devolved into apes?

Well, first of all, the use of the word "devolved" implies that there was negative (as opposed to positive) progress being made. Evolution as a process is not intrinsically "moral" nor does it build towards some end goal. It's just the natural result of selective pressures. But, that's somewhat tangential.

As for humans and apes, the idea that humans came from apes (or vice versa) is actually somewhat misleading. It is more accurate to say that humans, apes, and monkeys all came from a common ancestor. Humans and the great apes are particularly closely "related" compared to other primates. However, the predecessor species of humans and apes do not exist anymore, mainly because their descendants evolved over many generations and millions of years into the forms of primates we see today (though some just plain went extinct).

I hope that explanation makes sense, I know it's very brief.

I know what "devolved" means, that is why I used it in that context.


That somewhat clears it up, thanks Eldo, but again that is just a theory. Not necessarily definite yet.

I'm glad my explanation was helpful. I'd really recommend checking out the link I posted earlier about the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific sense. As a scientific theory, evolution is as close to definite as any scientific theory is. For the record, gravity is also "just a theory", because scientists realize they aren't omniscient and can never be absolutely 100% sure.

Its all about inheritence Lorient. When your parents conceived you two pieces of information were brought together, from sperm to egg, and joined to form a sort of organic blueprint, a set of chemical instructions. Those instruction are held in everyones DNA and now we can 'read' DNA and identify the codes.
When you look at human DNA and compare it to DNA in other things you can see where we were close and where we split off from them by which bits of code we share.
So for example the code which determines some things, like making lungs or hearts is common acorss all mammals, we share the same DNA code. The only way to get that DNA code is to inherit it, so at some distant point all the things which share those bits of code must have had a common ancestor who passed it on.
As evolution makes small changes in species over time they eventually diverge so much that breeding becomes no longer possible between them- and you have speciasation. After that happens there can be no sex except with others of the same type, so no passing on of code, so no inheritance. You can roughly work out therefore when these splits happened from when we stop sharing bits of code.
With the apes etc we are so similar genetically that it shows we must have split from a common ancestor relativley recently (in geoligical terms), and remember there was a huge blooming and diversity of primate types- less than 30,000 years ago there were at least three species of 'human' on the planet who diverged from the common ancestor, Neanderthal Man, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens. And we know in the further past there were several more at least- (including those 'hobbit' people) it just so happens we we are the only ones left standing out of that group that diverged into upright, thinking, creatures. (sadly in my view-would be a very interesting world with more than one type of sentient 'human' living on it).

Interesting for us yes, but for them probably a living hell. look how we treat aboriginal people from around the world, anyone not seen as Modern are treated like second class citizens.
Neandertals being sentient but intellectually seen as inferior would probably be relegated to the zoo. I cant see them as being free to choose where they would live.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So what does your religion (and this is also to anyone else of a different christian denomination) Lorient say for why God/Jesus needed sacrifces in the first place? And why did He change His mind about them?

The sacrifices were meant to symbolize Christ's sacrifice and atonement. This was the only way prior to Christ that one could "repent." After Christ's death and Atonememt, they were no longer needed. Because of his sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, you could repent without sacrifices.

Why did they have to symbolise it with the death of animals? Why not plants or smash some rocks up or something- why did God require blood and death?

What we need is a New Holy Book. Maybe one every couple of decades. The old ones become obsolete so fast. God keeps changing His mind. He could be a Woman after all.

I believe the animals were supposed to symbolize Christ. They had to be the best, without blemish, as Christ was. The sacrifice of the animals, their flesh and blood, were supposed to symbolize the sacrifice and death of Christ.

I get what they symbolise (even if from my point of view people in OT times would need to know the future to have a reason to do it- but lets ignore that for a moment) what I don't get is why God needed sacrifices at all?- let alone of living things. Whats the point?
The peoples of S. America for example believed blood fed the Gods and if you kept them fed it would prevent huge scale disasters happening where they drink a lot- a bit mad but you can see the thinking. Why did the Christian God need sacrifces though?

Lorient Avandi wrote:I believe the animals were supposed to symbolize Christ. They had to be the best, without blemish, as Christ was. The sacrifice of the animals, their flesh and blood, were supposed to symbolize the sacrifice and death of Christ.

However one looks at it, the whole idea is silly, and not a very uplifting picture of God. He sounds as bad as the cruel blood lusting False Gods that he was combatting at the time. Couldn't people just adore and obey God in their hearts without all the show? Jesus had some wonderfully liberated (and liberating) views on God. Also, his contempt for Religion was refreshing. I'm very fond of Jesus. He did not suffer fools.

The sacrifices were meant to show their fear and love ofGod. I do believe they helped make up for some of your sins.