Is the Mormon Leadership in a hidden panic?

Post by **_truth dancer** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:44 pm

Hi MG....

Just now getting to read this thread...

There are those that will move away from the church, but when all is said and done...it's because they lost their way with Book of Mormon issues rather than looking at it with closer scrutiny.

I disagree.

My loss of belief had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issues surrounding the Book of Mormon.

Even if the Book of Mormon were true, (which I findly completely impossible at this point), it is no way means anything else is true.

There are people the world over who believe they have received information, revelation, inspiration directly from God... and they have just as much chance at being right as did Joseph Smith... doesn't mean anything else they say is true or right or of God.

~dancer~

Post by **_Runtu** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:47 pm

truth dancer wrote:Hi MG....

Just now getting to read this thread...

There are those that will move away from the church, but when all is said and done...it's because they lost their way with Book of Mormon issues rather than looking at it with closer scrutiny.

I disagree.

My loss of belief had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issues surrounding the Book of Mormon.

Even if the Book of Mormon were true, (which I findly completely impossible at this point), it is no way means anything else is true.

There are people the world over who believe they have received information, revelation, inspiration directly from God... and they have just as much chance at being right as did Joseph Smith... doesn't mean anything else they say is true or right or of God.

~dancer~

Yep, Book of Mormon issues were secondary to me as well. Rather, it's the totality of all the things one has to rationalize and make excuses for that makes the truth of Mormonism so unlikely for me.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:35 pm

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Chauncey Webb.

True, but do you have any evidence his statement wasn't true.

One does not "dismiss" original source material as a historian. One "questions" it. I find it fascinating that the anti-Mormons on this board, you included, simply accept at face value anything published if it furthers your view of things. I question Webb's statement as it appears in a vicious anti-Mormon book many decades after the fact.

And for the one above you who cites again to Ann Eliza Webb? Be my guest. If you accept the view that relations between Fanny and Joseph were before 1834, why that supports the Mormon doctrine of the preexistence.

rcrocket

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:37 pm

rcrocket wrote:I find it fascinating that the anti-Mormons on this board, you included, simply accept at face value anything published if it furthers your view of things.

First, I am no "anti-Mormon." Second, my reference to Chauncey Webb was in response to Coggins's demand for any evidence (other than from Oliver Cowdery) of sexual relations between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.

I question Webb's statement as it appears in a vicious anti-Mormon book many decades after the fact.

Fair enough, but that should be juxtaposed with the fact Webb was in a position to personally observe the apparent pregnant condition of Fanny when she was kicked out by Emma and went to live with the Webbs. As far as I know, Chauncey never repudiated the statement which appeared in Wyl's book (although Chauncey lived 17 years after the book's publication).

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:39 pm

mentalgymnast wrote:
As I said, the Book of Mormon is still around. It has had the honor of promoting a great deal of controversy, but no resolution one way or the other.

This is a bit of an overstatement. There really isn't much controversy surrounding the Book of Mormon. The vast majority of people don't care. Of those who have actually done a little research into the Book of Mormon, the vast majority don't believe it to be what the church claims. It's a very tiny group of people who are actually debating whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. The rest of the world either doesn't care, or has come to the conclusion that it is not true. In the grand scheme of things, the Book of Mormon has been rejected as a historic document. However, most non-mormons are more than happy to allow Mormons the right to consider it scripture. How could they not?

At this point in time we have somewhat of a stalemate. There are legitimate and worthy reasons for reasoned belief or at least the plausibility of reasoned belief in the Book of Mormon.

If makes people happy, go ahead and believe it. But there isn't a stalemate. The Book of Mormon has never been accepted as a historic document outside the Mormon church. Anyone who thinks there is a great debate about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is deluding themselves. The only debate is among a tiny group of Mormons and their critics.

There's a lot riding on the Book of Mormon isn't there?

Not really. If it isn't true, humanity will keep moving ahead without even noticing.

It is indeed keystone. Other issues take a backseat.

The whole keystone thing could easily be Ezra Taft Benson's opinion. Gordon B. Hinckley could come out tomorrow and announce that the Book of Mormon is fiction and the church will no longer be using it as scripture, and command all members to burn their Book of Mormons, and the members would dutifully follow and not question him too much. There may be a few who get upset and resign, and I'm sure a splinter Book of Mormon church would sprout up, but LDS Inc. in Salt Lake City would continue along, collecting tithing, meeting on Sundays, and obeying the living prophet. Because the living prophet is more important than anything, even the Book of Mormon.

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:52 pm

harmony wrote:The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.

MG: I disagree. The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the Book of Mormon. That the Book of Mormon is what it says it is. If it is not, then the church is not what it says it is and does not have the authority of Jesus Christ that it claims to have. Some on this thread have condemned the Book of Mormon for not having any basis for belief behind it simply by throwing out a comment or two to disparage it. I can empathize with that. For example, if one goes to these to sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic ... _of_Mormon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

it is possible to find reasons to cast the Book of Mormon aside, but you can also find reasons to take a further look.

If you take that further look by visiting a site such as this one:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/book ... index.html

and take the time to investigate the material posted there, it is possible to come away thinking that it is possible that the Book of Mormon has something to it besides crock.

Those that have cast aside the Book of Mormon as being strictly a nineteenth century production have done so prematurely in my opinion.

The church does rise or fall on the Book of Mormon. Many churches teach about Jesus Christ. Saying that the LDS church would be able to continue its three fold mission if the Book of Mormon was proven to be false is wishful thinking.

If the Book of Mormon is a fabrication/fraud there is no reason to continue bearing testimony of the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

Back to the orginal topic of this thread, if the Book of Mormon is not what is says it is, the GA's have every reason to run for cover. OTOH, if the Book of Mormon is true, I don't see that they have any reason to get to hyped up about the internet forums, web pages, etc.

Regards,
MG

Post by **_harmony** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:09 am

No, MG. The cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ. Anyone who says differently is commiting blasphemy. And SWSU is correct; the prophet could pitch it to the curb tomorrow, and the church would continue with hardly a blip. The words of the living prophet Trump everything else.

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:35 am

harmony wrote:The cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ.

MG: agreed. The keystone, however, is the Book of Mormon.

...the prophet could pitch it to the curb tomorrow, and the church would continue with hardly a blip.

MG: you're dead wrong.

The words of the living prophet Trump everything else.

MG: what does that have to do with the importance of the Book of Mormon?

Regards,
MG

Post by **_Runtu** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:20 pm

mentalgymnast wrote:MG: agreed. The keystone, however, is the Book of Mormon.

What I find interesting is that on a practical level, the Book of Mormon is not used all that much. Yeah, we're supposed to read it and pray about it, but it's not a huge source of doctrine (even Joseph Smith rarely preached from its pages). It's a converting tool, first and foremost.

MG: you're dead wrong.

I think there would be quite a blip, as there was in the RLDS church, but she's right that the church would continue fairly unimpeded if it chucked the Book of Mormon.

The words of the living prophet Trump everything else.

MG: what does that have to do with the importance of the Book of Mormon?

If the words of the living prophet Trump everything else (and they pretty much do), the scriptures are secondary in importance, which I believe was the point of her post.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:21 pm

mentalgymnast wrote:
harmony wrote:The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.

MG: I disagree. The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the Book of Mormon. That the Book of Mormon is what it says it is. If it is not, then the church is not what it says it is and does not have the authority of Jesus Christ that it claims to have.

You're absolutely right there.

harmony wrote:The cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ.

Yes. But the cornerstone of the 'Jesus Christ Church Of Latter Day Saints' is the Book of Mormon, not Jesus Christ.