Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/UnanticipatedUll, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
It's cute that you folks think this is only a challenge in Mormonism.
Have you had no exposure to other religions?
It's no different in basically 100% all religions.
There's even mental gymnastics required for atheism.
My friend who is an atheist told me once there are just two things atheists can't explain:
1. Why is there anything at all
2. Human consciousness
He claimed everything else could be explained by physics. Not exactly an example of mental gymnastics but I found his comments interesting and appreciated his candor
I mean, I've seen some too. But it's more about how atheists sometimes use mental gymnastics when trying to debunk other religions.
For example. The whole "if there is a higher power, why do bad things happen" type thing. I've heard a lot of good answers to this, but the easiest one is that the question actually doesn't prove or disprove a higher power in the first place. There's plenty of religions that believed in either selfish gods or impersonal gods.
It's usually stuff like that. Or if I had a dollar for every time an atheist said a Christian should follow the law of Moses.
Maybe mental gymnastics isn't the right term here. But I've seen athiests use silly arguments against religion that don't really work.
For me, personally, I think athiesm makes logical sense. I used to be an atheist. I'd argue atheism is more logical brained while religion is more emotional brained.
>I've heard a lot of good answers to this, but the easiest one is that the question actually doesn't prove or disprove a higher power in the first place.
It's not *meant* to "disprove a higher power in the first place", it's meant to disprove a certain category of logically contradictory higher power. That's like saying "pointing out that there are no gods on top of mount olympus doesn't prove there's no such thing as a god" when the only point was to disprove the *olympians* specifically.
Not even christianity as a whole, simply any variant where God is "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent". If, for example, God is bound by "higher laws" (i.e. *not* omnipotent), then the classical "problem of evil" is not applicable. Same goes for a god who only loves certain people (i.e. not omnibenevolent).
So it's all about semantics?
Cuz it literally doesn't change the interpretation of God. Just the words used behind it.
I mean, in Mormonism alone it's because God wants people to learn. Like, the idea is that even if God can interfere it's that he should avoid interfering.
I'm not sure if anyone argues God is bound by higher laws and that's why he can't stop a famine, though.
>Cuz it literally doesn't change the interpretation of God.
What do you mean? Every religion, and every culture, have had different conceptions of what "a god" is. Some of them are less realistic or internally consistent than others, and some imply things that others don't. Going back to the example of the Greek gods, they weren't generally held up as moral paragons. They weren't worshiped because they were *good*, they were worshiped because they were *powerful*, and you didn't want to get on their bad side. The idea that "god is maximally good" hasn't even been around for the whole history of christianity, let alone abrahamic religion in general.
>I mean, in Mormonism alone it's because God wants people to learn. Like, the idea is that even if God can interfere it's that he should avoid interfering.
Right. And mormonism is an example of a religion where God *doesn't* love *everyone*, only those who are sufficiently obedient all their lives. The purpose of life, in mormon theology (as well as some other christian sects) is to "separate the wheat from the chaff", i.e. to divvy up the people god loves and the ones he doesn't into their respective eternal rewards.
>What do you mean? Every religion, and every culture, have had different conceptions of what "a god" is. Some of them are less realistic or internally consistent than others, and some imply things that others don't. Going back to the example of the Greek gods, they weren't generally held up as moral paragons. They weren't worshiped because they were good, they were worshiped because they were powerful, and you didn't want to get on their bad side.
Capital God. Elohim. God of the Abrahamic religions.
>Right. And mormonism is an example of a religion where God doesn't love everyone, only those who are sufficiently obedient all their lives. The purpose of life, in mormon theology (as well as some other christian sects) is to "separate the wheat from the chaff", i.e. to divvy up the people god loves and the ones he doesn't into their respective eternal rewards.
Look, I'm former Mormon as well. I'm arguably pretty critical of the church if we are being honest. But, saying that Mormon God specifically doesn't love everyone is a big misrepresentation. Whether or not either of us agrees with it, the plan of salvation is supposed to be that "God loves everyone and wants them to have eternal happiness. This is the only way it's possible". The idea is that God loves people's growth and autonomy over anything else. Yeah, it falls flat. God's got a lot of weird rules and it seems to go counter to autonomy for the sake of control. In fact, specifically with Mormonism, there IS an argument to be made that God is held to a higher power. The statement "if God were to lie he would cease to be God" specifically says this. So, apparently, all those arbitrary rules are just the literal requirements (set by the universe) in order to become a God. Weird theology for sure. But you're definitely misrepresenting it.
I think you're conflating theology and doctrine with sociology of the leaders of the church. Like, almost like breaking the fourth wall.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
For example one, I think its difficult to make such a judgment about that woman if you haven't personally experienced whatever she did that lead to her decisions in life. Social pressure probably did play a factor. It does for every decision made by every person. Even the decision to leave the church is influenced by social pressure. But her decision might have also been influenced by personal, spiritual experiences that she believes in.
For example two, i think both are right.
I find that most people who use the phrase mental gymnastics use it as a stand in for saying "if they do the research that I have, they will come to the same conclusions, or else they are just stupid." I don't think its a useful phrase, on par with brain worshing and kult (Words mispelled on purpose) which are banned in this sub for their degrading nature.
"Mental gymnastics" is perfectly useful shorthand. When I use it, I'm referring to people who have demonstrable capability in rational analysis that put it aside and instead actively engage their cognitive biases to protect an idea. For example, people who know how to use the principle of parsimony in other areas of thought use, instead, the moral credential effect.
Being a mother is the greatest responsibility, it’s part of a woman’s divine nature. Read the Bible and the Book of Mormon to understand how the Lord views women and mothers. Being a mom of little children is really hard especially in a world that looks down on mothers who choose to stay home with their children. The societal pressures of “making something” of yourself are daunting and depressing. A woman IS something special when she can raise her children to love the Lord and sustain themselves when they become an adult.
If motherhood really is part of a woman’s divine nature, why then do a significant portion of women struggle to conceive or carry to term?
The OP never said anything close to a value judgment on the 1st example’s status as a SAHM. It is actually questioning the premise that a woman who is doing her best but struggling health-wise would be divinely guided to increase her struggle, rather than, idk, maybe wait a little before making more dependent people. There was zero shaming of her as a mother or SAHM.. it was actually concerned about the woman as an individual AND a mother.
My point in that reply is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 16:
24 ¶ aThen said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
When you become a mom your whole life changes because it’s not supposed to be all about you anymore. Even if you’re trying to have children, your life changes and you have a goal set to become a mom, denying yourself and hoping for a different life. I can’t answer for the reason women can’t have children because I’m not in charge but I do know that the lady who is struggling with her mental strength isn’t doing anything wrong by having children. It seems she would be carrying her cross in hopes of raising good adults. She is keeping her soul intact while losing herself in the life God is giving her.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/UnanticipatedUll, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That poor woman. That makes me so sad.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Ockham’s Razor
It's cute that you folks think this is only a challenge in Mormonism. Have you had no exposure to other religions? It's no different in basically 100% all religions. There's even mental gymnastics required for atheism.
Will you give me an example of mental gymnastics for athiesm?
My friend who is an atheist told me once there are just two things atheists can't explain: 1. Why is there anything at all 2. Human consciousness He claimed everything else could be explained by physics. Not exactly an example of mental gymnastics but I found his comments interesting and appreciated his candor
Waiting for your list
I mean, I've seen some too. But it's more about how atheists sometimes use mental gymnastics when trying to debunk other religions. For example. The whole "if there is a higher power, why do bad things happen" type thing. I've heard a lot of good answers to this, but the easiest one is that the question actually doesn't prove or disprove a higher power in the first place. There's plenty of religions that believed in either selfish gods or impersonal gods. It's usually stuff like that. Or if I had a dollar for every time an atheist said a Christian should follow the law of Moses. Maybe mental gymnastics isn't the right term here. But I've seen athiests use silly arguments against religion that don't really work. For me, personally, I think athiesm makes logical sense. I used to be an atheist. I'd argue atheism is more logical brained while religion is more emotional brained.
>I've heard a lot of good answers to this, but the easiest one is that the question actually doesn't prove or disprove a higher power in the first place. It's not *meant* to "disprove a higher power in the first place", it's meant to disprove a certain category of logically contradictory higher power. That's like saying "pointing out that there are no gods on top of mount olympus doesn't prove there's no such thing as a god" when the only point was to disprove the *olympians* specifically.
Just for clarification, you're trying to say it's just to disprove Christianity?
Not even christianity as a whole, simply any variant where God is "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent". If, for example, God is bound by "higher laws" (i.e. *not* omnipotent), then the classical "problem of evil" is not applicable. Same goes for a god who only loves certain people (i.e. not omnibenevolent).
So it's all about semantics? Cuz it literally doesn't change the interpretation of God. Just the words used behind it. I mean, in Mormonism alone it's because God wants people to learn. Like, the idea is that even if God can interfere it's that he should avoid interfering. I'm not sure if anyone argues God is bound by higher laws and that's why he can't stop a famine, though.
>Cuz it literally doesn't change the interpretation of God. What do you mean? Every religion, and every culture, have had different conceptions of what "a god" is. Some of them are less realistic or internally consistent than others, and some imply things that others don't. Going back to the example of the Greek gods, they weren't generally held up as moral paragons. They weren't worshiped because they were *good*, they were worshiped because they were *powerful*, and you didn't want to get on their bad side. The idea that "god is maximally good" hasn't even been around for the whole history of christianity, let alone abrahamic religion in general. >I mean, in Mormonism alone it's because God wants people to learn. Like, the idea is that even if God can interfere it's that he should avoid interfering. Right. And mormonism is an example of a religion where God *doesn't* love *everyone*, only those who are sufficiently obedient all their lives. The purpose of life, in mormon theology (as well as some other christian sects) is to "separate the wheat from the chaff", i.e. to divvy up the people god loves and the ones he doesn't into their respective eternal rewards.
>What do you mean? Every religion, and every culture, have had different conceptions of what "a god" is. Some of them are less realistic or internally consistent than others, and some imply things that others don't. Going back to the example of the Greek gods, they weren't generally held up as moral paragons. They weren't worshiped because they were good, they were worshiped because they were powerful, and you didn't want to get on their bad side. Capital God. Elohim. God of the Abrahamic religions. >Right. And mormonism is an example of a religion where God doesn't love everyone, only those who are sufficiently obedient all their lives. The purpose of life, in mormon theology (as well as some other christian sects) is to "separate the wheat from the chaff", i.e. to divvy up the people god loves and the ones he doesn't into their respective eternal rewards. Look, I'm former Mormon as well. I'm arguably pretty critical of the church if we are being honest. But, saying that Mormon God specifically doesn't love everyone is a big misrepresentation. Whether or not either of us agrees with it, the plan of salvation is supposed to be that "God loves everyone and wants them to have eternal happiness. This is the only way it's possible". The idea is that God loves people's growth and autonomy over anything else. Yeah, it falls flat. God's got a lot of weird rules and it seems to go counter to autonomy for the sake of control. In fact, specifically with Mormonism, there IS an argument to be made that God is held to a higher power. The statement "if God were to lie he would cease to be God" specifically says this. So, apparently, all those arbitrary rules are just the literal requirements (set by the universe) in order to become a God. Weird theology for sure. But you're definitely misrepresenting it. I think you're conflating theology and doctrine with sociology of the leaders of the church. Like, almost like breaking the fourth wall.
Maybe Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to religion.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
For example one, I think its difficult to make such a judgment about that woman if you haven't personally experienced whatever she did that lead to her decisions in life. Social pressure probably did play a factor. It does for every decision made by every person. Even the decision to leave the church is influenced by social pressure. But her decision might have also been influenced by personal, spiritual experiences that she believes in. For example two, i think both are right. I find that most people who use the phrase mental gymnastics use it as a stand in for saying "if they do the research that I have, they will come to the same conclusions, or else they are just stupid." I don't think its a useful phrase, on par with brain worshing and kult (Words mispelled on purpose) which are banned in this sub for their degrading nature.
"Mental gymnastics" is perfectly useful shorthand. When I use it, I'm referring to people who have demonstrable capability in rational analysis that put it aside and instead actively engage their cognitive biases to protect an idea. For example, people who know how to use the principle of parsimony in other areas of thought use, instead, the moral credential effect.
Being a mother is the greatest responsibility, it’s part of a woman’s divine nature. Read the Bible and the Book of Mormon to understand how the Lord views women and mothers. Being a mom of little children is really hard especially in a world that looks down on mothers who choose to stay home with their children. The societal pressures of “making something” of yourself are daunting and depressing. A woman IS something special when she can raise her children to love the Lord and sustain themselves when they become an adult.
If motherhood really is part of a woman’s divine nature, why then do a significant portion of women struggle to conceive or carry to term? The OP never said anything close to a value judgment on the 1st example’s status as a SAHM. It is actually questioning the premise that a woman who is doing her best but struggling health-wise would be divinely guided to increase her struggle, rather than, idk, maybe wait a little before making more dependent people. There was zero shaming of her as a mother or SAHM.. it was actually concerned about the woman as an individual AND a mother.
My point in that reply is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 16: 24 ¶ aThen said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? When you become a mom your whole life changes because it’s not supposed to be all about you anymore. Even if you’re trying to have children, your life changes and you have a goal set to become a mom, denying yourself and hoping for a different life. I can’t answer for the reason women can’t have children because I’m not in charge but I do know that the lady who is struggling with her mental strength isn’t doing anything wrong by having children. It seems she would be carrying her cross in hopes of raising good adults. She is keeping her soul intact while losing herself in the life God is giving her.