NOM

In my opinion, being taught that Heavenly Father is an exalted man is partly to blame for many Exmo's turning to atheism or agnosticism. I do a little study of other Christian traditions and I've found a more flexible view of deity. My own searching has led me to a less dogmatic understanding and broader sense of of what "God" could mean.
Universalism and Unitarianism are two traditions that don't get much expose on the net, probably because they are open minded and less dogmatic. People who post typically want to convince others of "their truth" rather than have a real "give and take" discussion, or consider different concepts of reality itself.
Most Mormons focus their world view and debates on literalistic interpretations of the bible, faith, and reality itself. So when their shelf breaks they have little awareness of people like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Lamb Eliot, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Thomas Jefferson, Arthur Schlesinger, Albert Sweitzer, let alone their Universalist views.
Still, maybe I'm wrong.

I was aware of those ideas before my belief broke.. I had a universalist friend.

I personally don't see any point to it. It just seems like believing to believe for the sake of belief alone. I don't see any point or meanng in that.

Certainly everyone is not wired the same and I am not apparently wired well for belief. Plenty of people find meaning through belief and it seems to be a genetic and physical reaction to a person's particular moral frame. I've never responded that way to the common triggers.

If you want to talk about why to believe and what is sufficient to believe in I think there are conversations to be had. But I also think those beliefs lacks sufficient basis for reasonable belief.

But most people believe for emotional reasons not rational.

For me it wasn't so much the Mormon concept of God that led me to have a hard time buying into any alternative framing of deity. It was more about coming to understand why I held my beliefs in the first place.

If I were to take on some new understanding of God, it wouldn't be based on tradition and feelings that I was taught have specific meanings like the first time around. Instead it would be because I really want to believe in something transcendent, and a matter of choosing some palatable definition. But even if I found the perfect definition I don't know how I'd convert that to actual belief.

Maybe if I engaged in a sustained effort of fake-it-until-I-make-it, I'd eventually have something close enough to genuine belief. But I'm not sure I could do it.

That said, I've still never referred to myself as an agnostic or atheist. Those terms just have too much baggage.

Does re-defining "God" to something other than "An exalted dude" provide more evidence that this other version of "God" exists?

Is this different version of "God" still supposed to be our "father" ?


As for me, the god I choose to believe in for today is the Hindu Goddess Rati.

Interesting responses. I grew up in a 90%- 95% LDS community. I didn't encounter a variety of Christian beliefs until my mission to Southern California, and I was moved by the sincerity of the various beliefs I encountered. I recognized that these beliefs were very important to people, and that many of them were the result of careful study and some kind of reasoning, as well as emotional belief, despite the reality that all of their beliefs, including the LDS had flaws, at least it appeared that way to me.
If there was no God, they could fall back on Pascal's wager, but if there was a loving and powerful God, that God would not relegate any to eternal torment or oblivion. Reflecting on D&C 19 years later, I saw it as both a recognition of the weakness of BOM theology, and the manipulative nature of Joseph Smith and/or Mormon Jesus.
From then on I have been a kind of 50% deist 50% pantheist, who feels that there are some very insightful, Love-inspired teachings in the Bible, as well as some very human-inspired, ideas that have promoted genocide, hypocrisy, racism, slavery, and other destructive actions.
It's interesting to me that dogbite knew a Universalist. Did you ever discuss your beliefs with them?
Ghost's response reminds me that people choose to believe, and they choose a belief that fills a conscious or unconscious need. Probably all or most of us have tried the 'fake it 'till you make it' road, and found it unsatisfactory.
Fluff,s response also reminds me that people choose their God, and often for arbitrary reasons, like choosing to follow their tradition. At least that's what I draw from his response. Is that God my father, you ask? Nope. More an object of longing. But that could change. and I could be wrong.
Thanks for responding.

Yes we discussed his belief. He grew up Italian Catholic. But was essentially atheist. When he had a kid he wanted a church experience but not theology per se and so his family were unitarians ( I mispoke the first time).

He described the practice as like being in a cathedral and the light of truth shines in all the different beautiful windows but none of them were themselves the truth. Just a view of part of it.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 8:27 pm. . .
Fluff,s response also reminds me that people choose their God, and often for arbitrary reasons, like choosing to follow their tradition. At least that's what I draw from his response. Is that God my father, you ask? Nope. More an object of longing. But that could change. and I could be wrong.
. . .

I don't know if I can "choose" to believe in a God. My jokes about the "god of the day" which I choose to believe in literally come from a website that has cataloged close to 4,000 different "Gods" that we has humans have invented; And said website literally has a "Deity Of The Day." I mean... I can "choose" to believe in a different "God" every day for over 10 years without repeat.


I do still wonder: Does deciding to be a deist, or a pantheist, or believing in Acca Larentia provide more evidence that any of those other versions of gods truly exist?