No more mormonism?

[Backroads]

That's a very valid point Origen and why I brought up it being convincing to everyone. If I find something I believe to be categorically damning of the Church that doesn't mean everyone else will (which means it isn't realignment, or disintegration, the Church would keep chugging along like it does when any other apostate skedaddles). It really would take the power of hypothetical to come up with something that everyone in the Church would find conclusive evidence of falsity.

Not to derail, but it's a similar thing that drives people from the Church. So-n-so leaves the Church because of some various doctrinal/historical detail that doesn't bother at all the next so-n-so.

You are going to be very hard-pressed to find conclusive evidence that bothers and convinces 100%.

But this thread is entirely theoretical...

[slamjet]

But this thread is entirely theoretical...

And this is the theoretical thought that does no one any good. To think of "what if Mormonism is false" leads down a very bad path.

Speculation on Gospel topics is one thing. Speculation of the Restoration leads to more negative speculation that will ultimately undermine a persons faith.

Plus, to say "don't answer if you don't answer the way I want you to" is not conducive to an open discussion. I'll answer by saying that for me, it's a useless exercise because the Church is very real to me. I also find it disturbing that there is someone on this forum who dares me to even entertain the possibility that it's not. It's a method and path to everything that is not faith promoting and uplifting.

[Dravin]

Plus, to say "don't answer if you don't answer the way I want you to" is not conducive to an open discussion.

Now sometimes the validity of a hypothetical is part of the intended discussion, but sometimes a debate over the validity of the hypothetical isn't desired but simply the end results of said hypothetical no matter how unlikely/impossible. It's no more harming open discussion than having any other topic put in place, such as say, "I'd like to have a discussion about fruit trees. Not interested in fruiting bushes though, just trees."

I also find it disturbing that there is someone on this forum who dares me to even entertain the possibility that it's not.

I'm curious, would you consider the following hypothetical, "What if dinosaurs (not talking about descendants like birds) where still alive and roaming the landscape Fred Flintstone style?", to be asking you to entertain the possibility that dinosaurs are actually still alive and kicking? Another common hypothetical is the outcome of wars, I daresay I've never considered a what if discussion on if hypothetically England had won the American Revolutionary War to be daring me to think that they possibly did win the American Revolutionary War. Similar with hypotheticals about German winning WW2.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Dravin

[Suzie]

(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:))

When I read this post, two quotes of President Hinckley came to my mind:

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.

When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith

Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.

Loyalty

How would my response be? Probably, a huge disappointment at the time and effort I have invested during all these years, disappointed to myself mostly.

[Dravin]

Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.

Oh my goodness! President Hinkley is presenting a hypothetical (if the Church is a fraud) and answering the hypothetical (if so it is nothing). Nowhere is safe for poor Slamjet, even presidents of the Church are viciously engaging in hypotheticals on the consequences of the Church being false and daring him to contemplate that it is in fact a fraud.

[prophetofdoom]

I don't think it can ever be proven to be "untrue." The Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon have pointed my soul towards Jesus Christ. My foundational testimony is on the Chief Cornerstone (Jesus Christ).

[mrmarklin]

I would become a Catholic since they can trace the authority of the Pope back to St Peter.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I don't think it can ever be proven to be "untrue." The Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon have pointed my soul towards Jesus Christ. My foundational testimony is on the Chief Cornerstone (Jesus Christ).

This is why I have no problem with Mormonism even though I don't believe in its claims. Any avenue by which people can come to Jesus is praiseworthy. If you have a personal testamony of Jesus Christ because of the LDS church, I can only rejoice with you.

[slamjet]

I'm curious, would you consider the following hypothetical, "What if dinosaurs (not talking about descendants like birds) where still alive and roaming the landscape Fred Flintstone style?", to be asking you to entertain the possibility that dinosaurs are actually still alive and kicking? Another common hypothetical is the outcome of wars, I daresay I've never considered a what if discussion on if hypothetically England had won the American Revolutionary War to be daring me to think that they possibly did win the American Revolutionary War. Similar with hypotheticals about German winning WW2.

Apples and oranges.

Your hypotheticals are events that may have a bearing on earth's timeline and can be talked about in the abstract.

Hypotheticals about religion is not abstract, it's an integral part of a persons being and gives guidance as to how he relates to, and decides upon moral questions. To ask me, a Catholic, Jew, Muslim is tantamount to asking them to view what gives them hope and a perspective larger than themselves and view it dismissively as irrelevant, useless and pointless.

We are taught missionary work is to find commonality and to build on, and add to another's belief. Not to "hypothetically" destroy them.

[Dravin]

Your hypotheticals are events that may have a bearing on earth's timeline and can be talked about in the abstract.

Well I think things such as a different religion being right or my own being wrong is something I can talk about in the abstract. I did so earlier in this thread. I can quite easily contemplate what I did earlier in the thread and I wasn't having to accept that, "By golly, maybe the Church isn't true." Just like I can discuss the implications of Germany winning WW2 without having to accept that it's just possible that they won.

So I rather strongly disagree that it's apples and oranges.

Hypotheticals about religion is not abstract, it's an integral part of a persons being and gives guidance as to how he relates to, and decides upon moral questions. To ask me, a Catholic, Jew, Muslim is tantamount to asking them to view what gives them hope and a perspective larger than themselves and view it dismissively as irrelevant, useless and pointless.

Um no, it's asking them what they think they would do, or how they think they would react (and the Church as an organization) given a set of circumstances which may or may not even be possible. He's not asking anyone to dismiss their faith as irrelevant, useless and pointless. No more so than answering a hypothetical about never getting married is asking one to dismiss their spouse as irrelevant, useless and pointless.

We are taught missionary work is to find commonality and to build on, and add to another's belief. Not to "hypothetically" destroy them.

Which has what all to do with this thread? This thread isn't an exercise in missionary work. Saintish isn't asking LDS people how they would react, and how they think the church as an organization would react, if somehow (magic mayhaps?) all the members became convinced it was false, in some sort of missionary effort. He's asking in the same sense of, "What would you do if you were king of the World?" (which wouldn't be an exercise in destroying people's beliefs in democratic governments) And he isn't destroying anyone's faith through the use of hypotheticals. No more so than asking "What if Germany won WW2?" is destroying people's understanding of history.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Dravin

[Jamie123]

Because your premise was all of Mormonism is false. That would include Jesus Christ, the Bible, etc.

It depends what you mean by "All Mormonism". You could interpret that as "all parts of Mormonism which differentiate it from other forms of Christianity". If every assumption that Mormons make were proven false then pretty much the entire world would cease to exist.

Without Mormonism, we do not have the concept of the Holy Ghost guiding us into a witness of the truth. So, I couldn't use that to retain/gain a testimony of Jesus or the Bible.

I'm sorry but this is totally false. The concept of the Holy Spirit as witness and counsellor is present in the Bible (John 15:26). This is accepted by nearly all Christians. Many other churches stress the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It isn't just a "Mormon thing".

[Dravin]

I'm sorry but this is totally false. The concept of the Holy Spirit as witness and counsellor is present in the Bible (John 15:26). This is accepted by nearly all Christians. Many other churches stress the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It isn't just a "Mormon thing".

You are quite correct. I wonder if he was getting at what I pointed out what I suspect my own problem would be (if revelation can't be trusted with the BoM, why would I trust it with something else?).

Edited June 15, 2011 by Dravin

[Jamie123]

You are quite correct. I wonder if he was getting at what I pointed out what I suspect my own problem would be (if revelation can't be trusted with the BoM, why would I trust it with something else?).

Ah - Thanks Dravin - I think I understand where he's coming from now: Disproof of Mormonism would indicate (to a Mormon) that revelation itself cannot be trusted, and any other church which relied upon it must also be flawed.

Though I suppose there may be more than one kind of revelation. The direct "burning-in-the-bosom" type revelation (which I've always mistrusted myself anyway) might be proven unreliable, but could revelation come in other forms which an ex-Mormon might learn to trust?

[Carl62]

Without Mormonism, we do not have the concept of the Holy Ghost guiding us into a witness of the truth.

Well if this is the case, then how do investigators get a testimony of the Book of Mormon if not through the witness of the Holy Ghost?

[rameumptom]

That's the point. If all of Mormonism is false, then there really isn't a Holy Ghost to give a testimony! It would come down to chemical reactions that deceive us into thinking there is a God, etc.

[Dravin]

Ah - Thanks Dravin - I think I understand where he's coming from now: Disproof of Mormonism would indicate (to a Mormon) that revelation itself cannot be trusted, and any other church which relied upon it must also be flawed.

Though I suppose there may be more than one kind of revelation. The direct "burning-in-the-bosom" type revelation (which I've always mistrusted myself anyway) might be proven unreliable, but could revelation come in other forms which an ex-Mormon might learn to trust?

Except, and I suspect I'm not alone, for someone who has been a faithful member for some time has experienced more than just a burning in the bosom. That may have been the first 'click' that converted but it's something that has been reinforced in other ways over the years.

That said it's certainly possible, there are people who once had testimonies leave the Church and don't become atheists so there is some way to reconcile it.

[Blackmarch]

(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:))

I'm in the religion because of answers to prayers. (altho there have been many things that i've seen since then that has supported my decision)

It will be by answer to prayers that will cause me to willingly leave the religion, should that ever happen.

I've dealt with so many "THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE LDS CHURCH IS FALSE AND JOSEPH SMITH WAS A FRAUD" ---- that there isn't.

IE it's become a case of the boy who cried wolf... and in this case there won't be a wolf specifically in regards to the OP.

as for the church I doubt everyone including the leaders, supposing it was some sort of revelation to them, would do a 180 switch and suddenly become hatemongering monsters... I'd imagine it would adjust as well as possible, and continue on with doing what it felt right to do.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I'm in the religion because of answers to prayers. (altho there have been many things that i've seen since then that has supported my decision)

It will be by answer to prayers that will cause me to willingly leave the religion, should that ever happen.

I've dealt with so many "THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE LDS CHURCH IS FALSE AND JOSEPH SMITH WAS A FRAUD" ---- that there isn't.

IE it's become a case of the boy who cried wolf... and in this case there won't be a wolf specifically in regards to the OP.

as for the church I doubt everyone including the leaders, supposing it was some sort of revelation to them, would do a 180 switch and suddenly become hatemongering monsters... I'd imagine it would adjust as well as possible, and continue on with doing what it felt right to do.

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.

[ruthiechan]

What I've wondered is this: what if a modern prophet made an announcement that it was all false, step down and called others to follow him?

I would say, "Wow, he's just led people who blindly follow him away. How sad that he has become a Son of Perdition" and mourn his loss and the loss of others in the church, and out of the church once news gets out.

[Backroads]

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.

Well-said. I believe anyone with reasonable skills and thought processes could take any doctrine of any church and find a few oddities with it.

But while I do agree with you that doctrine is important, doctrine is nothing without belief and faith in God. That's what is ultimately important.

[Guest saintish]

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.

amen, amen, amen... Thank you, If we can’t make the whole world Mormon I wish that at least those who aren't could share your sentiment.

[skippy740]

What if it was all false? Well, I thought of Hub McCann's speech (SecondHand Lions):

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most: that people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love, true love, never dies... No matter if they're true or not, a man should believe in those things because those are the things worth believing in.

The LDS church is a force for good and service in the world. And we spread a message of hope and charity.

The WORST case scenario (besides all the PR that would happen) is that we'd be the most welcoming and most competitive "Masonic Lodge" in America!!!

[slamjet]

Well I think things such as a different religion being right or my own being wrong is something I can talk about in the abstract. I did so earlier in this thread. I can quite easily contemplate what I did earlier in the thread and I wasn't having to accept that, "By golly, maybe the Church isn't true." Just like I can discuss the implications of Germany winning WW2 without having to accept that it's just possible that they won.

So I rather strongly disagree that it's apples and oranges.

So you're willing to subtly allow the thought of "what if it's not" to play in your mind. To each their own.

Um no, it's asking them what they think they would do, or how they think they would react (and the Church as an organization) given a set of circumstances which may or may not even be possible. He's not asking anyone to dismiss their faith as irrelevant, useless and pointless. No more so than answering a hypothetical about never getting married is asking one to dismiss their spouse as irrelevant, useless and pointless.

This is in contradiction what is quoted above. One cannot think what they will do without entertaining the notion that it may not be true. If the untruthfulness is not explored, then the question cannot be answered. It's basic Scientific Method. "no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered."

Which has what all to do with this thread? This thread isn't an exercise in missionary work. Saintish isn't asking LDS people how they would react, and how they think the church as an organization would react, if somehow (magic mayhaps?) all the members became convinced it was false, in some sort of missionary effort. He's asking in the same sense of, "What would you do if you were king of the World?" (which wouldn't be an exercise in destroying people's beliefs in democratic governments) And he isn't destroying anyone's faith through the use of hypotheticals. No more so than asking "What if Germany won WW2?" is destroying people's understanding of history.

I've explained what i will explain. You want to lump in the question of the truthfulness of personal faith and God into historical what-ifs, feel free. I'm saying it's a subtle game, it's an unnecessary exercise in doubt that is not "...virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy..." It is dangerous and, as one who has gone down the path and is extremely well acquainted with darkness and the sublimity of the Adversary, it's a dangerous game that is counterproductive and has absolutely no benefits or rewards.

I only warn that it's a game that does not need to be played nor should it be entertained. I am also of the opinion that this type of exercise has no place on this forum. Should I not post here if I think this way? I feel that I would be negligent to do otherwise.

[applepansy]

I only warn that it's a game that does not need to be played nor should it be entertained. I am also of the opinion that this type of exercise has no place on this forum. Should I not post here if I think this way? I feel that I would be negligent to do otherwise.

I have to agree with slamjet on this one. I was the first to post on this thread and then deleted my post because I wasn't up for an argument today.

thank you slamjet for saying it better than I ever could.

[Guest saintish]

I only warn that it's a game that does not need to be played nor should it be entertained. I am also of the opinion that this type of exercise has no place on this forum. Should I not post here if I think this way? I feel that I would be negligent to do otherwise.

Well thank you we have heard your concerns, do you really need to continue to press the issue?

I think you have missed the point of the thread, it not to question whether the church is true or not, but to consider what it mean to you if it wasn't. I think the main conclusion we can draw is that it is such an integral part of members lives that they would either be atheists or at least lose faith in Christianity. It also seems that it is such a foundation to the church that it could not exist if it isn't true.