No more mormonism?

[slamjet]

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.

This does not make sense. It sounds like "We're not questioning if the Church is true or not, we're just offering for discussion what if it wasn't." It's one in the same.

Your OP:

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?

So, taking your OP, the game is to suppose what conclusive evidence would come out that would disprove the Church. And if it did come out, what would you do? What would the Church do as a whole?

As I have said before, it is not "...virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy...". Furthermore, it's "a game that does not need to be played nor should it be entertained."

You call it an intellectual exercise. I call it a common question asked by those who are not strong in the faith and/or are opposed to the Church. So I ask you the same question you posed to me; Do you need to press this exercise?

[FanOf31]

I'd want my tithing back lol

[Guest saintish]

This does not make sense. It sounds like "We're not questioning if the Church is true or not, we're just offering for discussion what if it wasn't."

I sorry it doesn't make sense to you, it makes perfect sense to me, that is exactly what we are doing.

So, taking your OP, the game is to suppose what conclusive evidence would come out that would disprove the Church. And if it did come out, what would you do? What would the Church do as a whole?

No I never ask for anyone to guess what that evidence was or might be that wasn't the point at all. I said if the evidence were to come about, never instructed anyone to guess what it might be and so far no one has.

[slamjet]

No I never ask for anyone to guess what that evidence was or might be that wasn't the point at all. I said if the evidence were to come about, never instructed anyone to guess what it might be and so far no one has.

Is what you are "truly" asking any better?

[Guest saintish]

Well myself and at least one of the moderators don't see anything wrong with it

[slamjet]

Well myself and at least one of the moderators don't see anything wrong with it

And that's why I worry and can't stay quiet.

[Guest saintish]

I think your over reacting

[slamjet]

I think your over reacting

Your defense of the question of whether the Church is true or not is disturbing in itself. To say I'm over-reacting to it really shows a lack of understanding of how subtle thoughts can blow up into faith-shaking ideas and acts.

[Guest saintish]

Your defense of the question of whether the Church is true or not is disturbing in itself.

that was never the question.

[slamjet]

that was never the question.

That is exactly what your question is:

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.

[Guest saintish]

Umm the question was how would you react/ what would happen if the church wasn't true, not if the church is true or not. I'm sorry if you can't appreciate the difference

[slamjet]

Umm the question was how would you react/ what would happen if the church wasn't true, not if the church is true or not. I'm sorry if you can't appreciate the difference

There is no difference.

Why even ask the question? Why ask if for some reason you yourself are wondering this? Why be an instrument into feeding others doubt? In what way is this remotely uplifting or useful?

[skippy740]

Unless a topic is against forum rules, I say it's okay.

Now, the question is a GOOD question - because EVERYONE experiences doubt of their testimony on some level at different times in their lives.

SO WHAT IF IT'S ALL FALSE? WOULD YOU REALLY BE BETTER TO BE BELIEVING AND PRACTICING, THAN NOT?

That's what the true message of this thread needs to be - and what I emphasized in my post on this thread.

There are two forces at work in this world: Those of faith and inspiring others up, and those not of faith to bring people down.

What we see in this thread is how those of us with faith would respond! Notice that it's more inspiring and checking on the spiritual welfare of others!

For that message, it is good.

Anyway, that's the way I've been reading this thread. You are free to disagree with me and my interpretation.

(And no, I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't have faith. Geez, I have to watch what I type!)

[ruthiechan]

Herein lies the danger of entertaining the idea that the Church turns out not to be true and what would you do?

Mosiah 4:30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not. (emphasis added)

"The aphorism, 'As a man thinketh in his heart so is he,' not only embraces the whole of a man's being, but is so comprehensive as to reach out to every condition and circumstance of his life. A man is literally what he thinks, his character being the complete sum of all his thoughts.

"As the plant springs from, and could not be without, the seed, so every act of a man springs from the hidden seeds of thought, and could not have appeared without them. This applies equally to those acts called 'spontaneous' and 'unpremeditated' as to those, which are deliberately executed.

"Act is the blossom of thought, and joy and suffering are its fruits; thus does a man garner in the sweet and bitter fruitage of his own husbandry."

From the book As A Man Thinketh by James Allen.

Edited June 16, 2011 by ruthiechan
Turned could not to count. Had to fix. >_<

[Guest saintish]

How does this question feed doubt? It merely ask people to examine there feelings

[slamjet]

How does this question feed doubt? It merely ask people to examine there feelings

You really aren't getting it, are you. You just answered your own question.

Read what ruthiechan just posted. It's more true than what most people will ever realize.

[Vort]

You know, I'm not sure who I agree with. Fact is, I agree with both sides.

I think it's foolish to play with something as priceless as your testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Asking "what if?" questions seems akin to asking your wife, "If we were to divorce, would you try to take the kids?" Some things are simply better left unexplored.

On the other hand, we must face reality. And reality is that we live in a world of unknowns where we try our best to recognize and follow the truth, realizing all the while that we can and will mess up.

If we have anything less than an absolutely profound revelation of the truth to our souls, then it is intellectually and spiritually dishonest to pretend that "we know beyond a shadow of a doubt with every fiber of our very being". It's hypocrisy. Part of being an adult is a willingness to recognize and acknowledge our own frailties. If we recognize that our testimony, strong though it may be, is not absolutely bullet-proof, then it seems reasonable to explore the consequences if we were to be believing something that is not so.

The fact of the matter is that we do believe things that are not so, lots of them. Our very understanding of the gospel itself is imperfect; we will have a lot of mind-expanding, soul-wrenching revelations before we reach our eternal goal. We need to find out who God is and discover that he isn't the being we thought. We need to discover the efficacy of the atonement and heartbreakingly find out that the feeble efforts we thought were so magnificent are barely even a beginning. We must examine our own selfishness and face the awful truth that, as much as we think we love our wives or husbands, we really don't love them anywhere near as much as we should -- as we must. As a child finds so many of his preconceptions to be naive or just plain wrong, so we will find so much of what we "know" to be much different in reality.

Of course, the gospel really is true. This Church really is the kingdom of God on earth. We all know that fact to varying degrees, some a little, some more, some a lot. But none of us has that perfect knowledge yet. So we must cling to it and nourish it with all tenderness and diligence, never allowing the howling, raging storms of our world to savage that which is most precious. But by the same token, we need to be absolutely honest with ourselves, and sometimes that might involve exploring uncomfortable situations, even those we know to be false, to see what truths we may glean about our own selves and our reactions to different situations.

So there's my analysis. I don't know. But I probably will avoid leveling much criticism at someone who thinks differently from me on the topic.

[ruthiechan]

How does this question feed doubt? It merely ask people to examine there feelings

The solution for someone who has doubts about the truthfulness of Gospel is to experiment upon the Word, as in to try living the Gospel. You are asking people to entertain the idea of living without it. This is the wrong form of entertainment, or thought provocation.

[john doe]

Let's settle down boys and girls. If you don't like a thread, it's best to report it with the reasons why, and then leave it alone. Going into attack mode every time you don't like a topic can become aggravating to mods who are trying to determine whether a violation has occurred.

[ruthiechan]

Sorry John, not trying to attack anyone.

[Martain]

What a peculiar question... May as well ask if you would still believe in the Sun if you simply could no longer see it.

I don't know about you but nothing you could say or do could ever convince me that the 'Sun' was an imaginary object that was made up. I can see it and feel it. Every living thing around me proves that there is a 'Sun'.

I know that what I believe is true. I don't think or mearly believe, I know. I know as sure as the sun rises and sets.

I know Jesus Christ lives. I know his atonement is real. I know that the Book of Mormon is true. Because I know that God lives and that the Book of Mormon is true, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prohphet. Because I know that, I believed everything else too.

"A bad man couldn't write such a book and a good man never would."

When something is revealed to your heart by the power of God... no 'purposed' evidence could possibly sway your conviction. What greater testimony can you have than from God?

Yet one might say "You don't really know... you only take it on faith. You mearly believe." That was true... originally. But the faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints eventually reaches a day when they have perfect knowledge that it is true.

I know it and I can't deny it.

Perhaps your question isn't really hypothetical... have you read the book? Have you tested Moroni's promise? If you have then you know the answer to your own quesion.

If some 'conclusive' piece of evidence came forth tomorrow 'proving' that our religion was false... I'd know beyond a shadow of doubt that the evidence was a lie. Why? Because I already know it is true.

That being said... there are those who would be swayed by such ficticious evidence simply because they were living on borrowed light with no real knowledge of their own.

In the event that your question isn't completely hypothetical... let me refer you to something that will help.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Martain
Had to fix one of the links

[Martain]

Hmm... I could have worded the second to last paragraph more diplomatically... I apologize and hope no one takes offense.

[ruthiechan]

Martain, that link only gives a list of speeches. What in particular did you want us to look at?

[Martain]

Martain, that link only gives a list of speeches. What in particular did you want us to look at?

I wanted to give you the link to where you could download the MP3 file of Hugh Nibley's talk called "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book" (which basically unmasks said writers attempts and exposes the logical fallicies)

Thy this link instead?

[HiJolly]

To the OP: We'd probably handle it about like the Seventh-Day Adventists have handled it. They are a very good case study.

HJ