Is the Mormon Leadership in a hidden panic?

[_harmony]

Do you think the Brethren are waiting for Pres Hinckley to die to do something about the growth rate (or lack thereof)? Or will that not matter, because many of them are almost as old?

[_Mercury]

MG, from your posts on this thread, it seems you think the LDS church is a Book of Mormon cult. This is what many critics think too. If the church would fall without the Book of Mormon, that is evidence it is not a Christ centered church and would provide ammo to those who suggest LDS are not Christian, would it not?

THe Book of Mormon is CHRIST CENTERED. Your argument thus fails.

Its hard to make a document plagarized from the new testament unchristlike, now isn't it?

[_ajax18]

I don't understand how a prophet would be considered THE prophet without a sequence of authority and I guess in my mind, the existence of the Book of Mormon would be the cornerstone of that sequence. Without that, what would keep ME from being THE prophet?

Probably because most people that join the church and the way people are taught in Church has less and less to do with doctrine and more and more to do with social reasons. I doubt anyone I baptized in my mission paid much thought at all to the idea of prophets, authority, apostasy, and truth. Most of their thought was probably consumed with personal relationships they had with people in the Church and how attendance, obedience, and activity would affect those. Most chapel Mormons refuse to even think about what is written on the internet and they avoid it like it's some kind of disease. They simply can't handle the truth.

I like you am concerned with doctrinal questions and my testimony would be greatly effected and in truth has been effected by what we've learned. Yet I think it's important to remember that we are in the minority. There are a lot of people in the Church who simply do not think about any of this.

The Brethren will never come out and announce a shift in belief about the Book of Mormon's historicity. They will simply stop stating that it is historical. Then you will begin to see more members who stop believing that it's historical and stubborn old ideas will start to die off with those who hang on to them. Then the new members may even start to express in their talks or quietly to their children that it's really not historical. As they do this, and the Brethren no longer discipline or try to shut these people up, we'll see what is basically a shift in doctrine.

As long as the Church stands, you'll never get a straight answer about these doctrinal shifts and the Brethren and members will always be careful to never discuss them in Church. If you really try pin them down, they'll say like GBH when confronted with curse of Cain quote, "Oh that's behind us."

2Nephi 9:29

This scripture is often referred to by LDS in talking about the way the devil leads people to hell. Yet it seems equally applicable to the way the Church reels in a new tithe payer.

[_Mephitus]

I love how Mormons recant that the devils plan is to make that people don't have a choice in acting good, and in the same breath say that you should unquestioningly follow the prophet for when he speaks you have nothing else to think of lest you be taken by satan.

[_Roger Morrison]

I don't understand how a prophet would be considered THE prophet without a sequence of authority and I guess in my mind, the existence of the Book of Mormon would be the cornerstone of that sequence. Without that, what would keep ME from being THE prophet?

Probably because most people that join the church and the way people are taught in Church has less and less to do with doctrine and more and more to do with social reasons. I doubt anyone I baptized in my mission paid much thought at all to the idea of prophets, authority, apostasy, and truth. Most of their thought was probably consumed with personal relationships they had with people in the Church and how attendance, obedience, and activity would affect those. Most chapel Mormons refuse to even think about what is written on the internet and they avoid it like it's some kind of disease. They simply can't handle the truth.

I like you am concerned with doctrinal questions and my testimony would be greatly effected and in truth has been effected by what we've learned. Yet I think it's important to remember that we are in the minority. There are a lot of people in the Church who simply do not think about any of this.

The Brethren will never come out and announce a shift in belief about the Book of Mormon's historicity. They will simply stop stating that it is historical. Then you will begin to see more members who stop believing that it's historical and stubborn old ideas will start to die off with those who hang on to them. Then the new members may even start to express in their talks or quietly to their children that it's really not historical. As they do this, and the Brethren no longer discipline or try to shut these people up, we'll see what is basically a shift in doctrine.

As long as the Church stands, you'll never get a straight answer about these doctrinal shifts and the Brethren and members will always be careful to never discuss them in Church. If you really try pin them down, they'll say like GBH when confronted with curse of Cain quote, "Oh that's behind us."

2Nephi 9:29

This scripture is often referred to by LDS in talking about the way the devil leads people to hell. Yet it seems equally applicable to the way the Church reels in a new tithe payer.

Ajax, i think you make a VG assessment of self-perpetuating Mormonism--they adopt & adapt as does any "Inspired Corporation"... Rothchilds have been around a long time...

From Wikipedia:

As of 2006, Dungeons & Dragons remains the best-known[8] and best-selling[9] role-playing game, with an estimated 20 million having played the game and over US$1 billion in book and equipment sales.[10] Dungeons & Dragons is known beyond the game for other D&D branded products, references in popular culture and some of the controversies that have surrounded it, particularly alleged links to satanism and suicide

As with D&D, what 'makes' Mormonism is "Participation"! As new players come-in, it's to the current 'rules'; the ones THEY are taught.

Old "rules/policies/attitudes/beliefs/(3 Nephites:-)/G-styles/etc" are easily forgotten for several reasons: Deaths, leavings, nor-that-important, barely believed anyway... So a person can be a serious game-player, a passive-participant, or an amused/entertained/rewarded spectator...

At one time i thought LDS Hierarchy were genuinely concerned with the feelings, thoughts & interests of LDS members. Many years of participation in all of the above levels of 'play' have enlightened me to the falseness of my earlier assumption.

Mormonism is a Corporate Entity with its unique Market Niche that fills a psyche-social need. It will compromise most tenets to accomodate growth. However, it will never restructure its management style from top-down Authoritarianism... Unless, that is, there is a "Revelation"... That is a built in survival technique...

Enjoy the game while its fun. When the joy ceases, just fold, & walk away--smarter... Warm regards, Roger

[_beastie]

As has been said a few times in this thread, the Book of Mormon is indeed keystone to the Mormon story. The Book of Mormon is still there...in many languages. And so is the church...in many countries. It isn't going anywhere except where it's mandated to go. 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.

If the Book of Mormon is true, so is the church.

MG,

I know that you think the alteration of revelation is not important from our past conversations, but this statement of yours apparently is not one whoever altered the revelation would agree with:

"if the Book of Mormon is true, so is the church."

Whoever altered the D&C passage so that instead of saying that translating the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith' ONLY gift and he should pretend to no others to saying it is his FIRST gift and he should pretend to no others until after finishing it obviously could see that the "truthfulness" of the Book of Mormon and the "truthfulness" of the LDS church in general are two very different things.

It's hard for me to understand why you, and so many others, don't seem able to grasp this simple issue. Look at the two assertions:

1- God inspired Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon.

2 - God inspired Joseph Smith to create a church, containing the "true" priesthood authority of JC that had been lost to the earth long ago.


Do these really look like the same assertion to you?

They certainly don't look like the same assertions to the thousands of people who have adhered to various splinter LDS groups, like RLDS and others. They all accepted the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired while rejecting the Utah church.

I'm pretty sure I've shared this with you before, but when I lost my faith, I still had some belief in the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired document. I just had no belief in the church as the "one true church". If God had, at any moment, chosen to answer my prayer about the truthfulness of the church (and all the different ways I phrased the question, hoping I would come up with the one "right" question), then I would have remained a believer, at least at that time. Whether or not my belief would have continued over the years I learned even more about the history of the church, I don't know. But at the time I lost faith, it was directly due to the fact that God either refused to answer my question, or the silence meant "no" (which is what I concluded at the time).