I think that over-population is a major issue that Christians of all denominations - indeed, perhaps people of all religions or none - will have to face seriously in the coming decades; I suspect that future generations will regard our laissez-faire attitude to having lots of children as an immoral feature of our society rather as we regard (say) denying the vote to women or child labour in past generations. But as we all know, it is notoriously difficult to predict future moral trends, and perhaps like most people who attempt it I am merely assuming that future generations will come to agree with me.
I think most people don't think that overpopulation is a problem, and thus, if it is, then
all groups will have to be shown the danger of having lots of kids. Given that we already consider it a bad idea to have more kids than a family can support, if the average Mormon can be convinced that this depends on both the family's financial situation
and the ability of the world as a whole to handle more people, then said average family will have fewer kids. We are not, after all, actually opposed to birth control.
(I have heard that the trend is that population is expected to plateau as certain trends - especially greater freedom and independence for women - increase. But if it looks like that won't be the case, we would be willing to curtail our family size.)
Anyway, Eran, I note (with the caveat that I have not read the previous threads) that you said you have heard some good and some bad criticisms of Mormonism. So my question is: what do you think the best criticisms are, and how do you respond to them? If you had to play devil's advocate, what is the best argument you could construct against Mormonism?
Well, that's a tough question, but I will give it a shot.
The main issue seems to be that often the only way that certain doctrines or practices mean anything is by our constant recourse to the idea that God has revealed so much to us. I am not sure I make myself clear . . . imagine that someone says, "doctrine X doesn't make a lot of sense", my reply would be, "well, I would agree, but I trust God to know what he is talking about."
That all sounds kind of meta . . . I am not, here, criticizing our belief in revelation as such, nor am I mentioning specific doctrine, but the fact that so much depends on the idea that God is speaking to us through prophets means that if He isn't, then pretty much everything we are doing is
way off base.
And then there is the Book of Mormon . . . I really couldn't think of a way that the church is at all what it claims to be if the Book of Mormon isn't what it claims to be. And the Book of Mormon is full of things that make even me, on occasion, scratch my head. It has several references to things that are (or appear to be) anachronistic, although I think that said anachronisms could very well indeed only be apparent. And the book itself deals with God intervening specifically in the course of the history of a relatively small group of people, so if you can't accept that, you can't accept Mormonism. Again, the only way to believe in the Book of Mormon is by asking God about it.
That all deals with criticisms of Mormonism's claim to be the One True Church; of course, criticisms can be leveled against it as a social organization, separate from all of that - bring up polygamy, for instance, or the limits we have placed on who can be ordained to the priesthood, or the fact that Mormons are often a pretty insular and exclusive bunch. (The last one I have heard far more than I have witnessed; non-Mormons in Utah, especially, mention it, but as a Mormon who never lived in Utah, I never personally witnessed it, since I was always surrounded by non-Mormons and thus
had to make friends with them.)