To be fair, you didn’t specify a time period other than pre-Columbian. Many of us are not familiar with the details of Mormon doctrine, so perhaps you could be more precise. 500 years ago? 1,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?
Um…not so much. The OP asks for responses from persons who regularly attend services, and is phrased in the present tense. You wrote that you used to be a regular attendee and added that you never believed.
I don’t have anything against atheists. Hell, I’m virtually one. And I’m not trying to throw atheists out of the thread. But you basically answered a question I didn’t ask.
Just out of curiosity, what church?
Practicing Roman Catholic, but I’m not a very good one.
I go to Sunday Mass and holy days of obligations only because I’m supposed to. I get absolutely nothing out of it, and don’t really believe that if you miss a day for reasons other than being sick then your putting your immortal soul in danger. But I go because I figure, if I’m going to call myself a Catholic then I should act like one (or at least try).
I have problems with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. And I also don’t see what’s so great or holy about her supposedly being a virgin her entire life. I mean yeah, the virgin birth is one thing, but after that?
Although one the one hand I believe the bible is against homosexuality, I personally don’t care one way or another if two men or two women sleep with each other and have no problem with legalizing same sex marriage.
And finally, I don’t believe God has much to do with this world. He created a natural world with natural laws and that’s what we live under. I don’t rule out the possibility of the occasional miracle, but over-all I believe that he pretty much stays clear of our affairs and for the most part just observes us.
Per wiki, the text supposedly describes events from around 2500 BC to about AD 400. Presumably one could calculate an at least somewhat closer date (putting it definitively before before or after the time of the supposed death of christ would be trivial), but I’m lazy and this is off-topic anyway.
I answered in the context of what I would have said during the time I was attending - consider it a message from the past, and a non-threadshitty one at that.
I’m having a hard time feeling guilty about my contributions to the thread to date - with the possible exception of the overtly off-topic first half of this post.
I was thinking of 10,000 years ago. I guess if the Mormons are imaging Jesus riding a mammoth around Indiana after the crucifixion, then it’s pretty damn unlikely. But you can see how Joseph Smith might have thought it possible when he added it to his mythology–mammoth fossils were being dug up all the time, and no one at the time knew exactly how old they were.
While my church isn’t explicitly so, they seem to be rather on the creationist side on the origin of humanity.
Also I’ve found their doctrine a bit too reptitive and lacking substance.
Ditto. Thank you for posting that. My beef is with the lack of acceptance of the American Episcopal Church model of bottom-up authority (i.e. the laity calls the Priest and Bishop, and has a large role in how the church is run). The other Anglican Provinces, particularly England, parts of Africa and South America have a traditional top-down model of authority (i.e. the laity follows the Priest who follows the Bishop). I don’t agree with that model, as it is not flexible enough now to deal with needed changes and call to actions.
Oh yeah, cradle Episcopalian, weekly attendance ~48 of 52 Sundays a year, Crucifer, Acolyte wrangler…
I’m not clear what this means - how can a doctrine be repetetive? Lacking in substance I get, obviously.
See, you prove my point. I believe that “the church is not a democracy” and that Bishops are the chief pastor and shepherd of their diocese, while national provinces are voluntary associations of geographically aligned dioceses. But within a diocese I believe in the top-down model. We can disagree and still be part of the same church! – lay reader, Standing Committee member, General Convention delegate 
I don’t attend at the moment, but I have in the past been active in pagan, especially heathen/Asatru, communities–even though I’m pretty much an atheist. I found meaning and a sense of belonging there, as well as a moral grounding that made sense to me.
However, being an atheist and skeptic among hard polytheists and self-styled magic users was hard going; I’m looking into a fledgling ‘agnostic pagan’ group at the moment though.
It’s a Presbyterian church.
So I figured (and Presbyterian was what I was looking for). I didn’t mean to ask the specific congregation; sorry if it came off that way.
Have you tried your friendly neighborhood Zen Buddhists? They’re nice and they have potlucks.
They basically repeat the same variety of vague, uncontroversial stuff in their sermons every week.
What precise, controversial matters would you have them address?
Also, what denomination do you belong to?
Are you talking to me or Curtis?
I assume the latter. But in case I’m wrong, I attend a UCC church, though I’m closer to being an atheist than anything else.
Oops! I did mean that for Curtis. I thought your church was UCC but wasn’t sure.
Not really any official doctrines and such for us Quakers, so I don’t have much to contribute. Like Shodan’s situation, it’s more that they’re squishy left and I’m less so on some issues.
Sometimes you think you’re squishy left, and then you meet some folks who show you that there are whole realms of squish that you had never dreamed of.