Does God actually need to exist?

[_Fence Sitter]

Good evening, I have a question:



My question: I'm really interested to hear how members think things would noticeably change if, unbeknown to them, God disappeared and was no longer involved in the Church? Would they be able to notice? What changes would they expect to notice? Etc.

Here is a response written by Cinepro, one of our frequent posters who is a believer of sorts, that I think answers the question in a roundabout way.

I believe the surety of whether something is "true" or not doesn't rest on one piece of evidence or experience. The knowledge only comes piece by piece, question by question, almost like a sculptor chiseling away to reveal his masterpiece. So we don't have one experience or piece of evidence upon which we base our knowledge, we have dozens, or hundreds, or thousands. Different pieces of a puzzle that combine to make a coherent picture.

So, when people ask me "what would it take", I respond that I'm not looking for one piece of evidence. I'm looking for a thousand. It should also be noted that I believe the burden of "proof" rests on the person making the claim, so I need evidence supporting the Church's claims before I will believe.

If the claims of the Book of Mormon were true, we would have every Mesoamerican researcher publishing papers saying "You know, it looks like we have a colony of Christ believing Hebrews here." And over the years, that belief would get more and more evidence, not less. There would be evidences of massive battles and wars of extinction around 400AD, metal plates with odd, egyptian-like writing turning up in digs all over mesoamerica, and vestiges of Biblical beliefs in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, the tower of babel, and the atonement turning up in central American murals and stelae. And the date of 33AD would be very, very notable for the huge change in population, and a consolidation of beliefs to pure, New Testament Christianity for hundreds of years over the entire proposed Book of Mormon geography. FARMS would publish article after article about how there really were horses and chariots and steel swords back then, instead of explaining why not.

God wouldn't hide Book of Mormon restoration evidences like the breastplate, sword of Laban, and Moroni's stone box.

Modern day spiritual claims would build up to an incredible "evidence"; you would see BYU conducting research breakthroughs in every field that surpass anything else in the world.

LDS artists, authors, filmakers, and musicians would consistently amaze us with creations that surpass the skill of any gentile talent. LDS athletes would be breaking world records right and left, and BYU would have scores of championship trophies in every sport and field; with the priesthood, Holy Ghost, and "health in their navel(s) and marrow to their bones", there just wouldn't be competition.

In every field, church members would show a level of knowledge and understanding that surpasses what could be done without the "Holy Ghost".

Priesthood blessings would work more frequently than a placebo, patriarchal blessings would be more accurate than a $5 palm reading, and faithful church members would never, ever fall for medical, financial or any other kinds of scams, especially after praying about it.

When anyone says something that isn't the Truth in Church (including urban legends and Faith-Promoting Rumor's that aren't true), the whole congregation would know instantly by the spirit.

When a member of the ward is a child molester, or cheating on their spouse, they wouldn't be called to positions of authority; leaders would be especially inspired by the "spirit" to not put a child molester in charge of the blazer scouts.

Our prophets, seers, and revelators would make prophecies that are better and more accurate than Nostradamus, translate the Book of Mormon into other languages with a seer stone instead of the BYU translation department, translate the Book of Joseph so it could be added to the Pearl of Great Price where it should be, and reveal incredible knowledge that will still be consistent with science 200 years from now.

The JST would be used by every Bible scholar, because incredibly, it just gets more things right compared to the ancient manuscripts. And the JST would even be used by the Church, instead of being a footnote to the KJV. Or President Hinckley would finish the JST, and we would take the "translated correctly" part out of the Articles of Faith, because now it is translated correctly.

Official Doctrine wouldn't need to be defined after we know whether or not the Church leader was wrong. It would be clearly stated, without equivocation.

In other words the evidence we should expect to see, if God was involved in the SLC branch of the LDS church, simply isn't there.

A similar form of this question has been asked of believers often on this form. So far, not one has been able to provide any concrete descriptions illustrating the difference between a church led by God and one led by the 15 corporate leaders.

A broader version of the same question is what differences might we expect to see in our own universe if God were not responsible for its creation and not involved in its management at any level?

[_Zadok]

The more specifically we (as Mormons) define God the easier it is for us to picture Him in our minds and assign human-like traits, feelings, and capabilities. But at the same time, when we do just this, it is also easier for our God to be found wanting, if not, as I have said, bat-shit crazy!

I believe the Church would be well served by backing away from such 'human-like' definitions and make God a more obscure force or influence. Then it is possible to widen the gulf between my expectations and what I want God to do for and with me. If God becomes some primal creation force, I can still believe without expecting Him to find my keys.

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm really interested to hear how members think things would noticeably change if, unbeknown to them, God disappeared and was no longer involved in the Church? Would they be able to notice? What changes would they expect to notice? Etc.

Church as a whole:
At this point in time it's possible that there would be little noticeable change in the near future. Policies/programs/doctrines are pretty much settled at this point. Tweaks are made here and there. If it was left totally up to men/women to make some of the upcoming decisions based upon scriptural and/or cultural precedent, I think the decisions could be made mainly in the "right". But as time goes on I would think that without revelation/inspiration there might be a gradual dissolution of what we might refer to as the gifts of the spirit. Men/women might tend towards greater liberalism and/or freethinking in theological thought or doctrinal interpretation/practice that could lead towards dissolution of the purposes/power/authority which was intended for the church to be proprietors of.

My guess is, however, that it wouldn't take the General Authorities too long to realize that things weren't moving along as they should. Most of these guys, I would think, would start talking among themselves asking, "What's up?" "Is God on vacation or what?" "Things feel different...what gives?" Hard to say, however, how long that might take to register. In the days of Brigham Young/Adam God there seemed to be some profound lapses in God's intervention with Brother Brigham in regards to Brigham's postulations concerning God, etc.

Church at the local level:
It's difficult to know how folks at the local level would respond to a withdrawal of God's intervention/Spirit. How much emotional response and natural intuitions/inclinations would supplant the Spirit without people directly noticing whatever difference there would be. Those differences are sometimes somewhat imperceptible unless one is able to differentiate between the natural mind and the biological responses/operations inherent in day to day living and the rather unique manifestations of the Spirit. I'd think that it could take some time for people, including many Bishops and RS Presidents...and others...to catch on to God's being on vacation or hanging out in another part of the cosmos.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

Good evening, I have a question:

Thank you mental gymnast for your considered reply to my original question(s), I would like to follow up on some points that you raise.

Church as a whole:
At this point in time it's possible that there would be little noticeable change in the near future. Policies/programs/doctrines are pretty much settled at this point. Tweaks are made here and there. If it was left totally up to men/women to make some of the upcoming decisions based upon scriptural and/or cultural precedent, I think the decisions could be made mainly in the "right". But as time goes on I would think that without revelation/inspiration there might be a gradual dissolution of what we might refer to as the gifts of the spirit. Men/women might tend towards greater liberalism and/or freethinking in theological thought or doctrinal interpretation/practice that could lead towards dissolution of the purposes/power/authority which was intended for the church to be proprietors of.

In this section you have allocated to God some attributes that would identify an organization led by Him rather than one led by men. You note that a Church devoid of His inspiration would gradually, over time, succumb to liberalism and freethinking. That suggests His Church can be identified by conservatism and closed thinking. On this basis it is interesting to cast our eyes backwards to the restoration of the Church to examine its timeline events to see if they fit with conservatism and closed thinking, or if the Church seems to have taken steps towards liberalism and freethinking. There can be no equivocation that the Church as it is today is different to the Church that Joseph Smith restored. One can see those differences in how the Church treats marriage, allocation of Priesthood authority, and more recently how the Church has amended its position towards same sex marriages since Proposition 8. When one examine those movements they seem, at least to me, to be moving towards more liberal, more socially acceptable positions. One looks towards the Temple endowment and one sees a similar pattern of a softening of the language. Explanations about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are becoming more tolerant of a nuanced, more liberal, more freethinking treatment of their authenticity.

My question: How can one not conclude that the historical timeline of the Church would indicate those attributes you have determined would be the signs of a lack of Gods involvement?

My guess is, however, that it wouldn't take the General Authorities too long to realize that things weren't moving along as they should. Most of these guys, I would think, would start talking among themselves asking, "What's up?" "Is God on vacation or what?" "Things feel different...what gives?" Hard to say, however, how long that might take to register. In the days of Brigham Young/Adam God there seemed to be some profound lapses in God's intervention with Brother Brigham in regards to Brigham's postulations concerning God, etc.

My question: How long did it take the Church to reach the conclusion that God really didn't want black people excluded from the priesthood and the temple and it was just Brigham's racism? How many Prophets following Brigham were uninspired to change it? If there is one event that would seem to categorically show that God is not involved in the Church it would be its treatment of black people. In fact, it was exactly the attributes you would see God as having - conservatism and closed thinking, that resulted in this generational institutional abuse of power. (That's kind of several questions )

Church at the local level:
It's difficult to know how folks at the local level would respond to a withdrawal of God's intervention/Spirit. How much emotional response and natural intuitions/inclinations would supplant the Spirit without people directly noticing whatever difference there would be. Those differences are sometimes somewhat imperceptible unless one is able to differentiate between the natural mind and the biological responses/operations inherent in day to day living and the rather unique manifestations of the Spirit. I'd think that it could take some time for people, including many Bishops and RS Presidents...and others...to catch on to God's being on vacation or hanging out in another part of the cosmos.

Regards,
MG

My question: How do members (and local leaders) today qualitatively differentiate between unique manifestations of the spirit and biological responses/operations such that they can clearly recognise Gods involvement?

[_mentalgymnast]

My question: How can one not conclude that the historical timeline of the Church would indicate those attributes you have determined would be the signs of a lack of Gods involvement?

I take it as an axiom of belief that if a restoration did occur then whatever has happened since the initial phases (Joseph Smith and BY) is part and parcel of that restoration. Whether it be added to or taken away. Now if there wasn't a restoration then the game is on. All of the questions that you propose are live. So you may be asking the wrong person. I operate under the assumption that it is plausible/possible that a restoration may have occurred.

My question: How long did it take the Church to reach the conclusion that God really didn't want black people excluded from the priesthood and the temple and it was just Brigham's racism? How many Prophets following Brigham were uninspired to change it? If there is one event that would seem to categorically show that God is not involved in the Church it would be its treatment of black people. In fact, it was exactly the attributes you would see God as having - conservatism and closed thinking, that resulted in this generational institutional abuse of power. (That's kind of several questions )

Again, this question is relevant only if a restoration did not occur. If the church is man-made then your question then becomes relevant. Because God is not in the picture. If God is in the picture, then your questions are mute.

My question: How do members (and local leaders) today qualitatively differentiate between unique manifestations of the spirit and biological responses/operations such that they can clearly recognize Gods involvement?

That's an excellent question. I think they would only be able to do so if they had encountered what they believe to be the manifestations of the Spirit and were able to compare the before and after. With God, without God. If they had not encountered a real manifestation beforehand they would have no comparison so would be left to their own understanding. If someone had not had a qualitatively different experience with the manifestation of the Spirit to begin with then we have an interesting dynamic at that point. Whether this would be an isolated situation or more or less widespread would determine the course of the program of the church. Correction points and junctures would be difficult to determine and implement.

But, as a fail safe, we have been told that the kingdom shall never again be taken from the earth before the second coming of Christ.

So again, if a restoration of lost truths and authority did indeed take place, your question becomes inconsequential.

Are you proposing that a restoration may have occurred and the church in in a state of apostasy?

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

Good evening mentalgymnast, I have a question:

My suggestion is that, assuming God was involved in restoring the Church via Joseph Smith in the way it is claimed, if at some point following that event the Church drifted into a state of apostasy members wouldn't notice.

When I asked what the hallmarks of such a thing would be, you suggested changes in Church policy or doctrine that took the Church in a more liberal or freethinking direction would be indicative of Gods dwindling involvement. I suggested some events that clearly take Church policy or doctrine into a more liberal or freethinking direction and you are now suggesting those things are simply indicative of the restoration.

My question: Is change towards liberalism and freethinking indicative of apostasy or confirmation of the restoration process? (You seem to have said both, which obviously cannot be).

[_Fence Sitter]

MG's defense that if a restoration occurred then the SLC branch of Mormonism is still true, is a non-sequitur. There are hundreds of organizations that claim(ed) authority tracing back to Joseph Smith. Even if he is correct that a restoration may have occurred he still is left trying to explain why the sect he belongs to is the correct version that God still recognizes. (Usually the only defense here is one of numbers - hey look we are the most popular one left - Why would God allow that if it wasn't the correct one - which ignores the obvious answer of why God would limit His church to a mere3-5 million believers as a standard against which to judge His church. going by that defense we all should convert to the religion with most followers.)

His methodology is seriously flawed from the start since it assumes the conclusion and then goes on to say anything that happens proves that conclusion.

It's like saying, If Thetans are real then Scientology is correct. No kidding Sherlock.

[_mentalgymnast]

Even if he is correct that a restoration may have occurred he still is left trying to explain why the sect he belongs to is the correct version that God still recognizes.

Which one other alternative would you put in first place?

It's like saying, If Thetans are real then Scientology is correct. No kidding Sherlock.

I realize that. But then you're back to the conclusions reached in the video posted at the beginning of this thread. And you have no answers for what comes after death. If there is a God, would you think, or even consider the possibility, that even with all the worlds's religions/beliefs, that God would AT LEAST give it the good ol' college try to get the most accurate/complete message out as best He can...to as many as will believe...and can receive the message?

There are a good number of LDS missionaries in all of the countries where they are able to enter and teach. They can't teach where they are not welcome.

And let's not play the card, again, that God could/should be doing a heck of a lot better job at getting the message out. Unless that's where you, and others, want to go...again. And we should at least look at the possibility that not everyone has to, needs to, wants to, hear the 'big picture' narrative/story in this chapter/phase of existence. There may be many other intertwined twists and plots that make up the sum total of the tale that is being told...and acted out in real time.

This whole eternity narrative/story may have many chapters and be a lot longer than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

by the way, Thetans don't have to be real in order for Scientology to be one of the plot lines within a larger story. Scientology does good. Would you concur that many people are better with it than without? Or at least if they think that they are the better for it...that this matters?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

My question: Is change towards liberalism and freethinking indicative of apostasy or confirmation of the restoration process? (You seem to have said both, which obviously cannot be).

I don't think the church has moved or will move in a direction of more freethinking and/or liberalism in basic core tenets of the faith. You were operating under the assumption that God has withdrawn from the church. I am operating from the assumption that He hasn't. Being more open to the needs and ministering to the LGBT community and having come around on the priesthood doctrine doesn't mean that the brethren have somehow become liberals and freethinkers in regards to the core tenets/doctrines of the faith. Those have remained intact. The thirteen articles of faith are still the thirteen articles of faith.

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

Which one other alternative would you put in first place?

You have a bad habit (I hope that it is unintentional) of trying to get me to provide answers to your problems. I don't have to suggest which one is correct or which one I would prefer or why. I am merely pointing out that asserting that Joseph Smith was a prophet leaves you as one of many claiming him as a prophet and does not establish any sort of claim for the SLC branch over any other. You, on the other hand, avoid answering why Monson represents the restoration because you then have to consider the very claims Holland says are unimportant.

It's like saying, If Thetans are real then Scientology is correct. No kidding Sherlock.

I realize that. But then you're back to the conclusions reached in the video posted at the beginning of this thread. And you have no answers for what comes after death. If there is a God, would you think, or even consider the possibility, that even with all the worlds's religions/beliefs, that God would AT LEAST give it the good ol' college try to get the most accurate/complete message out as best He can...to as many as will believe...and can receive the message?

See here you are again asking me for answers to problems you have created. I don't need to have answers to what happens at death in order to question the ones you provide.

There are a good number of LDS missionaries in all of the countries where they are able to enter and teach. They can't teach where they are not welcome.

So?

And let's not play the card, again, that God could/should be doing a heck of a lot better job at getting the message out. Unless that's where you, and others, want to go...again. And we should at least look at the possibility that not everyone has to, needs to, wants to, hear the 'big picture' narrative/story in this chapter/phase of existence. There may be many other intertwined twists and plots that make up the sum total of the tale that is being told...and acted out in real time.

Hey, I can't help it if I continue to point out that a pair of deuces is probably a loosing hand, and that there are a whole lot of tables out there with different games, whose participants seem every bit as content as those few sitting at the Mormon table.

This whole eternity narrative/story may have many chapters and be a lot longer than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Or it is just as likely that our eternity consists of 50-70 years (if we are lucky) of this life. When I am asked about the risk versus rewards think many LDS put so much stock in (similar to Pascal's wager) my reply is that if 70 years is all we have, then it is much more important to spend it wisely than if we actually are going to live forever.

by the way, Thetans don't have to be real in order for Scientology to be one of the plot lines within a larger story. Scientology does good. Would you concur that many people are better with it than without? Or at least if they think that they are the better for it...that this matters?

I am not sure how much of a conversation we can have, if you are willing to propose that Scientology might have some redeeming value. I am sure there are many people in North Korea that think they are better for living there too.

No, I would not concur that many people are better with Scientology than without it. It takes advantage of its adherents financially while at the same time encouraging them to believe in the worst sort of pseudo-science masquerading as religion, while teaching that actual science is wrong.