No more mormonism?

[curiousheathen]

Well if I found it I'm not sure it'd effect the whole Church, anymore then when someone finds out something about Church history and feels they've found conclusive evidence it's all false. If this evidence was so well known and convinced everyone then the Church would fall apart. I'm not sure realignment is a practical possibility due to the size of the Church and the effect the leadership of the Church having to go, "Yep, all a sham, so we're just gonna side step over here you see..." would have. If a Church has been teaching me falsehoods since I was a child I'm not sure why I'd start having confidence it'll do things the right way now.

Edit: On the personal level, if I came to disbelieve there is a strong inclination to say I'd become agnostic or atheist. The same mechanism that allowed me to know of the Book of Mormon's truth are the same ones that let me know of the Bible's truth. Personal revelation would be dead as a truth finding mechanism as it would have been proven how unreliable it is, which would be a problem for more religions than just Christianity.

I was talking with my fiance about this...I think this question can apply to anyone regardless of religion, and I think it's a good question to ask. I found conclusive evidence (albeit not factual in the strictest sense but personal gnosis later reinforced by fact) that the Catholic church was not true, and eventually became Pagan. My fiance often said he believed the church was true- until he read some literature (which I won't post because I don't want to offend anyone) and started really digging in to things he had issues with. My view is this-- what kind of faith is so weak that questioning it can take it away? What strength is there in a religion that questioning can break it down? I question my faith everyday. I ask deep probing questions and I don't always like the answers I get. I continually reevaluate my position in compliance with both fact and personal gnosis (or personal revelation if you will) and my faith is only reinforced. So for my fiance it pretty much was a wake up one day and realize the church isn't true sort of thing. He's currently a gnostic pagan. *more random and unsolicited opinions from the peanut section*

[FanOf31]

I have asked my grandpa this very same question or maybe he even brought it up I can't remember. Either way, and he is a very respected and very religious devout lds member who's been a bishop twice and in the stake presidency. He told me "in a world where the church ended up not being true, which it IS true, just take a look at the scientific, mental health, physical health, and financial benefits you would STILL gain by having followed the commandments. You would be smarter, healthier in every sense of the word, and have a much more fulfilling and pleasing life on Earth. This in itself testifies and proves that the true church on Earth is ours as it's perfect, as God's true church would be". Quite an enlightening discussion if you ask me

[Guest saintish]

It’s probably time for this, like all good threads, to die. Before it does let me reiterate the original intent and scope of this thread.

What would your response be (your feelings, thoughts, actions) if tomorrow you were to find out by some conclusive piece of evidence that there was no way our religion was True? Not that just parts of it weren’t true, the whole thing back to Joseph Smith.

And related to the first, how would the church proceed? Would it cease to exist or realign itself?

The purpose was two parts, to examine what the church means to you and how it would affect you if it either no longer existed or changed in such a way that it was unrecognizable from its current form, and to postulate what the church would be like if it could no longer claim what makes it unique.

The hypothetical was just that, a hypothetical to keep people from asking “what could cause that” or to guess at what type of evidence might cause that. The intent was never to have people question their testimony or to admit that it might be possible to prove the church is false (which I don’t believe is possible) or to guess at what might prove the church false. I am not interested in that.

[Blackmarch]

I have no problem coming up with a compelling argument against the BoM and Joseph Smith's claim to revelation, but what I cannot do is convince myself that I am doing God's will and work by doing so like so many others do. I look at the fruits of the LDS church and how they've prospered and I can only conclude that it's by the will of the Holy Spirit. Many people like to "put God in a box" and balk at the idea that the Holy Spirit can move through a denomination that has errors in doctrine, but I keep in mind that Jesus compared the Spirit to the wind, blowing where it wishes. It's my belief that God is working earnestly to reach every corner of the globe with the gospel and will use any vessel that avails itself.

I take a lot of heat for my POV from Catholics and fundamentalists alike. It comes down to the belief that doctrine trumps all. And while I do believe that doctrine is important, I neither believe that a person is saved by doctrine, or that error in doctrine is insurmountable for a denomination to fit into God's greater scheme. The reason doctrine becomes so important to some Christians is because it can be defined and controlled....unlike the Holy Spirit.

I agree. I've seen a few compelling arguments, not many but there are a couple, however i've never seen much sense in going out of the way to deconstruct someone elses construction (at least not until they are ready to change what they've constructed) no matter how right or wrong a person is.

In my experience in regarding proof, there is little to none absolute proof in the world.

[slamjet]

It’s probably time for this, like all good threads, to die. Before it does let me reiterate the original intent and scope of this thread.

The purpose was two parts, to examine what the church means to you and how it would affect you if it either no longer existed or changed in such a way that it was unrecognizable from its current form, and to postulate what the church would be like if it could no longer claim what makes it unique.

The hypothetical was just that, a hypothetical to keep people from asking “what could cause that” or to guess at what type of evidence might cause that. The intent was never to have people question their testimony or to admit that it might be possible to prove the church is false (which I don’t believe is possible) or to guess at what might prove the church false. I am not interested in that.

You still don't get it. To get the answer you want, a person's testimony needs to be put into question. The answer does not exist in a vacuum. It's dangerous, it produces doubt, and it's a subtle way to let the adversary creep in to pull a person down. Why you still defend your OP and are trying to change the parameters to make it more palatable really strikes me as wanting to intellectualize that very thing that is beyond mere reasoning. God and faith is more than just a "fun" mental exercise. To treat it as such is a disservice that leads to a gnostic mindset. The faster this thread dies, the better.

[Vort]

You still don't get it. To get the answer you want, a person's testimony needs to be put into question. The answer does not exist in a vacuum. It's dangerous, it produces doubt, and it's a subtle way to let the adversary creep in to pull a person down. Why you still defend your OP and are trying to change the parameters to make it more palatable really strikes me as wanting to intellectualize that very thing that is beyond mere reasoning. God and faith is more than just a "fun" mental exercise. To treat it as such is a disservice that leads to a gnostic mindset.

Disagree. I would argue that the utter refusal to confront one's own insecurities and investigate alternative ideas is a sure recipe for a non-thriving, weak testimony that will prove incapable of withstanding the winter blasts that befall each of us, whether or not we seek them. It is one thing to dismiss one's own testimony and follow a path, in action or in thought, that must lead to ruin. It is quite another to ask an honest "What if?" question.

My father-in-law, a convert and one of the best men I ever knew, once said to me, "Vortie, if I found out the Church wasn't true, I still think living by its precepts would be the best thing to do, because they lead to happiness." I admired him for his courageous forthrightness and honesty. I cannot find any fault with him for pursuing that line of thought.

The faster this thread dies, the better.

Says the guy continuing the thread. :)

[slamjet]

Disagree. I would argue that the utter refusal to confront one's own insecurities and investigate alternative ideas is a sure recipe for a non-thriving, weak testimony that will prove incapable of withstanding the winter blasts that befall each of us, whether or not we seek them. It is one thing to dismiss one's own testimony and follow a path, in action or in thought, that must lead to ruin. It is quite another to ask an honest "What if?" question.

My father-in-law, a convert and one of the best men I ever knew, once said to me, "Vortie, if I found out the Church wasn't true, I still think living by its precepts would be the best thing to do, because they lead to happiness." I admired him for his courageous forthrightness and honesty. I cannot find any fault with him for pursuing that line of thought.

Says the guy continuing the thread. :)

I would argue that my testimony is far from weak, and my refusal to allow myself to entertain such a question is to not let the adversary get a foothold. Plus, I don't think you truly know what type of winter-blast I've been through for the past many decades, nor how I've seen the same "honest what if" question being asked of so many in an attempt to excuse their behaviors.

Lesson #1 - Don't ask the "what if's" questions because there are so many scenarios to one question, you will be driven mad going through them all. Its a useless exercise when one really needs to be grounded in the here and now.

Lesson #2 - Don't mess with those things that have a potential to weaken one's testimony of God and his healing power as well as his authority through the Church. It will only lead one down a path of doubt and inactivity with a long road of regaining their faith ahead of them.

Lesson #3 - When one see's something that has a potential to be destructive, and is chugging along unchecked, where reasonable, say something. What I have done here is to point out how fruitless this whole thing is and am disappointed that so many have joined into something that has no potential to edify.

Defend it if you want by saying that I must be weak if I don't agree, play along or voice an opposition to it. That just put's you into the category of "hey, check this out, one peek won't hurt a thing, what, are you chicken?" Yea, from the pit where I've been, from what I've been through to get to where I'm at, and from where I have learned to draw my strength from, this question is nothing but offensive.

[Vort]

Defend it if you want by saying that I must be weak if I don't agree, play along or voice an opposition to it. That just put's you into the category of "hey, check this out, one peek won't hurt a thing, what, are you chicken?" Yea, from the pit where I've been, from what I've been through to get to where I'm at, and from where I have learned to draw my strength from, this question is nothing but offensive.

Whoa, hold your horses, there, cowboy. No one turned this into a referendum on your personal spirituality. This is a discussion list; as such, we discuss things. Stating an opinion on a matter is not tantamount to calling you names because you disagree.

You obviously have strong feelings about this, and that is obviously based on your past experiences. I accept that reality and honor your beliefs. By the same token, you should realize that the fact that you really, really believe something does not make it so.

For you, perhaps it really is spiritual poison even to consider the "What if?" scenario of the Church being less than it claims. So be it. You should avoid such questions like the plague they are -- to you. But that does not mean that everyone else is likewise vulnerable or that such a question might not be of positive benefit to them.

[slamjet]

I will post this, and then I'll leave this thread alone.

This hypothetical that has been posted is very, very personal to me and from where I've been, from what I've done, for that very same question I've asked myself, it has only lead me to do some horrific stuff that I have paid a very heavy price for. I've lost my marriage, family, job, home and ultimately, my church membership because of that hypothetical question I've played out in my mind. It has been a tough, tough decades long road to get to where I am. And where I am now, I have not regained any of what I've lost, nor do I expect to get much of it back. But what I did gain is a hugely strong testimony of God, his personal love for all his children, his healing power and the wonderful vessel of this Church and Gospel that has pulled me out of the bastion of the spiritually dead. And with all the pounding we all get from the Adversary, that testimony is fragile and how quickly it can be lost. Many times, without even realizing it.

This hypothetical was one of many little pebble in the pond of my early life. It turned into a tsunami. Similar question I have been asked by a lot of folks who are struggling with their own demons. The continual feedback of questioning the existence of God and/or the Church has led others down the same path I've taken. I've seen it, I've experienced it, I've seen other struggle with it. I warn about it because it is not an innocent hypothetical exercise.

Having shared all that, any other forum I would have cared less. However, this being an LDS forum, as much as I tried, there was no way I was able to stay away without saying something.

[ruthiechan]

Slamjet is right.

The Gospel is designed for the weakest of us. There are questions on this forum that I will NEVER ASK because I do not know the spiritual levels of each person here. Maybe the majority of people here will be fine with this question, but maybe a lurker will not be. Our focus needs to be on the unknown person who will not be fine after entertaining this quesetion.

[Dravin]

Maybe the majority of people here will be fine with this question, but maybe a lurker will not be.

And maybe someone will object to the frivolity of the Questions Only thread and be disturbed by it and leave the Church because real Christians should be more sober. You're begging the question, some of us aren't accepting this as some sort of inherently dangerous question that only someone of "strength" should dare ask themselves. Heck, President Hinckley was quoted in this thread addressing the hypothetical about the consequences of if the first Vision didn't happen (His answer to the hypothetical of it not happening? The church is a fraud) and he broached it in General Conference no less.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

Slamjet is right.

The Gospel is designed for the weakest of us. There are questions on this forum that I will NEVER ASK because I do not know the spiritual levels of each person here. Maybe the majority of people here will be fine with this question, but maybe a lurker will not be. Our focus needs to be on the unknown person who will not be fine after entertaining this quesetion.

I try to make my deciding criterion, "Would I be comfortable if my children were reading this thread?" With the obvious exception of some of the sex-related threads, I am generally fine with it. I do seek to shield my children from some of the ugliness and brutality of life, especially when such ugliness seems attractive (e.g. porn). But in general, I do not seek to shield them from ideas; rather, I try to introduce ideas to them along with Daddy's take on the matter.

I want my children to have multiple legs to stand on, so that when one or two get kicked out from under them, they aren't left in a freefall. So I want them to begin to consider questions like, "Why am I a Latter-day Saint? What does that mean? Do I really believe this stuff? Why and why not? What do the scriptures say to me? Do I gain benefit from prayer? To the extent that I do not, is that because I'm not putting into it what I ought? When I see something that seems strongly to suggest that my religious ideals are wrong, how do I react? What are my sources of strength?"

In my opinion, the important spiritual abilities are not developed by refusing to acknowledge and confront doubt. Rather, I have found that it is almost always better to confront doubts head-on and learn to work through or around them. Avoiding such issues tends to breed doubt all by itself. Learning to be comfortable with, or at least accepting of, one's own ignorance and weakness can actually be a great strength. You can believe, exercise strong faith, and nourish and strengthen your testimony even while you wrestle with issues and explore your doubts.

The single exception is when confronting doubts that terrify you and that you can't get past your emotional reaction to. These doubts are probably best left completely alone until you have developed more spiritual maturity. I know several women who are so terrified at the very idea of polygamy that they go to pieces just talking about it. One has actually torn Section 132 out of her Doctrine and Covenants. Such people would do well not to tackle the issue of polygamy until they have become a lot firmer in their testimonies and beliefs. But I do think that's the exception, not the rule.

[Guest saintish]

Heck, President Hinckley was quoted in this thread addressing the hypothetical about the consequences of if the first Vision didn't happen.

good point.

[Dravin]

Now in all fairness to Slamjet not all hypotheticals are advised. I just don't think this hypothetical is dangerous and I disagree that it's an invitation for one to invent or ponder what evidence it would take for them to leave the Church as the nature of the hypothetical is set up such that it is a given and need not be considered, this magical evidence made of hypotheticalonium simply exists for it's purpose. Much like how in a physics 101 question it isn't inviting you to ponder why you are dropping a tennis ball and a bowling ball in a vacuum, it's simply a given for the purpose of the question.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Dravin

[ruthiechan]

President Hinckley did not ask us to imagine what it would feel like if the church were a fraud. In fact, nor did Vort's Father in law. If it isn't true then we're a fraud. If it isn't true it still leads to a happy life here on earth. Those are very very different from the original question.

Dravin, I do not think it's fair for you to say that you do not believe this hypothetical is dangerous because Slamjet told us that FOR HIM IT WAS and it really messed things up for him.

Vort, and others, having doubt and sowing seeds of doubt are two different things. I'll have doubts, but then when I experiment upon the word, my faith is renewed. When I have doubts about particular doctrine, then I research, ponder, and pray. That is how it should be done. This thread does not do that. It has the potential to fertilize doubt for SOME PEOPLE, and it is them we need to think of. I know you and Dravin and others will do fine with this topic, but not everyone will. Slamjet just told us that he did not when it came up for him years ago. It is illogical for us to conclude he is the only one or to disregard his message because he's taking it personally. It's like saying only those who've been physically abused are against corporal punishment.

[Vort]

This thread...has the potential to fertilize doubt for SOME PEOPLE, and it is them we need to think of. I know you and Dravin and others will do fine with this topic, but not everyone will. Slamjet just told us that he did not when it came up for him years ago. It is illogical for us to conclude he is the only one or to disregard his message because he's taking it personally. It's like saying only those who've been physically abused are against corporal punishment.

Let us suppose we have been invited to a ward covered-dish party (often called a "potluck"). Each is responsible for bringing something to add to the eats. Within our ward, we know of three people with peanut allergies, two children with gluten intolerance, and a family of vegans. So the question is: Whose responsibility is it to protect those ward members?

Well, we are all our brother's keepers, right? So therefore, no one should bring anything that has been in any sort of contact with peanut residue, wheat, or animal products of any type.

OR...we could allow each person (or for children, the parents) to decide what food to take and what to leave alone.

I think the second approach makes more sense in this case. No one is being forced to participate in this thread.

[ruthiechan]

When I tell you not to think of an elephant, the first thing you think of is an elephant. When asked the original question of this thread one's mind instantly calls up that scenario. For you, it's no big deal. For someone else who is already struggling, it can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That person may not ever revisit the thread, but it's too late. The imagery has already been called to mind and the damage done.

[Vort]

When I tell you not to think of an elephant, the first thing you think of is an elephant. When asked the original question of this thread one's mind instantly calls up that scenario. For you, it's no big deal. For someone else who is already struggling, it can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That person may not ever revisit the thread, but it's too late. The imagery has already been called to mind and the damage done.

I disagree, Ruthie. The ideas "God doesn't exist" and "the Church is false" and "the world is flat" already exist and are well-publicized. No one can be surprised to hear such a sentiment expressed; they are endemic. Seeing a subject line that says "No more mormonism?" cannot be expected to cause apostasy in the weak. If that were the case, we would have an extremely limited set of topics we could discuss.

And where to draw the line? Perhaps one of our brothers or sisters is so disturbed at the idea of organic evolution that his/her testimony might hang in the balance if anyone so much as mentions the possibility of a Mormon believing evolution. Shall we then prohibit all talk of evolution so as not to damage this hypothetical brother or sister? Shall we refuse to talk about abortion, or marijuana legalization, or BYU football, or investing in IRAs, because you never can tell when something you talk about might trigger apostasy in someone?

We must assume that people are rational adults and can decide for themselves which topics are acceptable and which are too threatening to them. It's not like we're talking about legalizing pornography, watching R-rated movies, or cheering for the Utes.

[ruthiechan]

Presentation matters.

True story:

A woman (not me) taught about Christ, but in her lesson she gave all these reasons why Christ was false, and expected the Relief Society to be able to refute the reasons. They were not prepared for this. At the end of the meeting the sisters left disheartened, some testimonies shaken at the very least (perhaps one or two left the church for a while, I don't know). They were not bolstered nor uplifted.

However, if the woman had done a point by point refutation of what the disbelievers said instead, then the difference would've been paramount. The women would have left the meeting knowing what the naysayers believed and would be armed to deal with it.

[Vort]

Presentation matters.

True story:

A woman (not me) taught about Christ, but in her lesson she gave all these reasons why Christ was false, and expected the Relief Society to be able to refute the reasons. They were not prepared for this. At the end of the meeting the sisters left disheartened, some testimonies shaken at the very least (perhaps one or two left the church for a while, I don't know). They were not bolstered nor uplifted.

However, if the woman had done a point by point refutation of what the disbelievers said instead, then the difference would've been paramount. The women would have left the meeting knowing what the naysayers believed and would be armed to deal with it.

I agree. At Church, you should never be engaged in challenging people's testimony or worrying about philosophy. That is not the purpose of Church. There are many otherwise worthy, worthwhile things that we should and even must do, but not at Church.

There is no imperative for us to participate on a discussion list, but neither is it wrong per se to do so. And a discussion list is not Church. So your example, while true, does not apply to this situation.

[Dravin]

Dravin, I do not think it's fair for you to say that you do not believe this hypothetical is dangerous because Slamjet told us that FOR HIM IT WAS and it really messed things up for him.

I would not say that gluten/nuts/shelfish/allergen of choice are dangerous just because someone might have an allergy. Nor would I say that silly threads like the Question Only thread are dangerous because somewhere someone was disheartened by Christians being so frivolous.

We must assume that people are rational adults and can decide for themselves which topics are acceptable and which are too threatening to them.

Indeed.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Dravin

[ruthiechan]

I would not say that gluten/nuts/shelfish/allergen of choice are dangerous just because someone might have an allergy.

Of course they are, if you do not know someone you're preparing food for is allergic, or if you do not know you have the allergy yourself.

[Dravin]

Of course they are, if you do not know someone you're preparing food for is allergic, or if you do not know you have the allergy yourself.

No. I do not consider them a dangerous item just because someone somewhere may have an abnormal reaction to it. Nor am I going to refuse to bring the shellfish gumbo or gluten containing bread to a church potluck because there may be someone allergic to it. Heck, drinking too much water, even clean water, can kill you, I still don't consider drinking water dangerous.

Or in the words of Vort:

We must assume that people are rational adults and can decide for themselves which topics are acceptable and which are too threatening to them.

If I went around assuming everyone had any possible combination of allergies I'd never be able to bring food to a potluck. Not offering arsenic is a pretty reasonable approach, refusing to offer anyone anything because they just might have an allergy would be, to put it mildly, an impractical approach. This thread isn't cyanide, it's a lasagna.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Dravin

[Backroads]

... I suppose I looked at this thread as what would my thoughts be if I weren't Mormon. Which I understand really wasn't the question, but it's how my mind responded to it.

[Traveler]

(I think this thread may have been posted in a similar flavor but I couldn’t find it in a search)

What would your response be (your feelings, thoughts, actions) if tomorrow you were to find out by some conclusive piece of evidence that there was no way our religion was True? Not that just parts of it weren’t true, the whole thing back to Joseph Smith.

And related to the first, how would the church proceed? Would it cease to exist or realign itself?

(This is obviously hypothetical so please don’t respond “this will never happen” or “I don’t answer hypothetical’s” because you don’t have to answer do you:))

It would be like getting up tomorrow and discovering that garvity has never existed and that the universe is an illusion.

The Traveler