Is the Mormon Leadership in a hidden panic?

[_harmony]

What do we use the Book of Mormon for? Not much. General Conference talks are the source of our teaching. So that's the living prophet, not the scriptures.

[_Yoda]

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

So...now you're stating that Ann Eliza Webb must have witnessed Fanny and Joseph's "marriage consummation" from the Spirit World?

Talk about sacreligious!

I noticed you didn't attach your new "In His Name" signature closing to this statement. ;)

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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

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 GAs talk big about the importance of the Book of Mormon, but previous GAs have talked big about the importance of polygamy, and the importance of the priesthood ban. The church has gone through many changes, and it would survive losing the Book of Mormon. When the church publically embraced polygamy in 1852, it ended the Joseph Smith Palmyra/Kirtland/Nauvoo era, and started a new chapter in Mormonism. When the church ended polygamy, it started a new chapter in Mormonism. These were monumental changes in the church, resulting in members leaving and joining splinter groups. If the church officially removed the Book of Mormon from its canon, it would be a monumental change, but it would survive. The keystone, cornerstone, headstone, and every other stone of Mormonism are all the same - Follow the Prophet. Everything else is expendable.

[_JoeNormal]

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?

[_Jason Bourne]

What do we use the Book of Mormon for? Not much. General Conference talks are the source of our teaching. So that's the living prophet, not the scriptures.

We study it once every four year in SS, it is a year of Seminary, it is encouraged to be read daily, Pres. Hinckley recently challenged the Church to read it by the end of a year (2005), it trumps the Bible for Mormons, it certianly is used very much so.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

That's true, Christ is a big part of the Book of Mormon, so you can still be Christian by using only the Book of Mormon, but you can also be a Christian church without it. My main point is the church can chuck the Book of Mormon and still move forward. It is not essential to the Church's survival. Their curent strategy is to defend it against all odds. But if it gets to be too difficult to defend, and gets in the way of baptisms and retention, or for whatever reason the GAs decide to move forward without it, the church could easily survive. It would create splinter groups, just as the Manifesto did, but the church would survive, in my opinion.

[_harmony]

Without that, what would keep ME from being THE prophet?

Nothing. Anyone can be prophet, as long as they are imbedded deeply enough into the heirarchy. Well... any male can be prophet. Women can grow up to be mothers. Men can grow up to be prophet.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Without that, what would keep ME from being THE prophet?

Nothing. Anyone can be prophet, as long as they are imbedded deeply enough into the heirarchy. Well... any male can be prophet. Women can grow up to be mothers. Men can grow up to be prophet.

Harmony, you're not thinking outside the box. Those are the rules of being a Mormon prophet. Anyone can be a prophet. Man, woman, black white, young, old, gay, straight, liberal, conservative. It doesn't matter. All you have to do is say you are a prophet and get enough people to believe you. Then teach them to sing "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way." You don't even need to make accurate prophecies, if they're close enough, they count as a prophecy, inaccurate ones can be explained away as simply opinions. In fact, to play it safe, you don't need to attempt any prophecies at all. Just ask your followers to raise their right hands if they think you're a prophet, and when they do, voila, you're a prophet.

Now, if you want to be THE prophet, as in the one and only true Prophet with the only authority on earth to speak for god, well, the same rule applies. Just read the above paragraph, except when you ask your followers to sustain you as a prophet, instead ask them to sustain you as the one and only true prophet.

[_Mephitus]

>Elder Boyd K. Packer remarked: "In recent years I have felt, and I think I am not alone, that we were losing the ability to correct the course of the Church." "Let Them Govern Themselves." Regional Representatives’ Seminar, March 30, 1990.


>If a church is not growing, it is dying...The task of church leadership is to discover and remove growth-restricting diseases and barriers so that natural, normal growth can occur." Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. 16-17.



>President Boyd K. Packer stated: “In recent years we might be compared to a team of doctors issuing prescriptions to cure or to immunize out members against spiritual disease. Each time some moral or spiritual ailment was diagnosed, we have rushed to the pharmacy to concoct another remedy, encapsulate it as a program, and send it out with pages of directions for use. While we all seem to agree that over-medication or over-programming are critically serious problems, we have failed to reduce the treatments. It has been virtually impossible to affect any reduction in programs…We do not seem to be able to solve a problem without designing a program with pages of instruction and sending it out again. The most dangerous side effect of all we have prescribed . . . is the over-regimentation of the Church. Packer, Boyd K. "Let Them Govern Themselves." Regional Representatives’ Seminar, March 30, 1990.



>Sociologist James Duke noted cited the Young Men's Study: “of 100 males born in the church, only 76 were ordained Deacons, 65 were ordained Teachers, 58 were ordained Priests, and only 32% went on missions. My understanding is that these statistics have not improved since 1984 when this study was published. If there is a major challenge in the Church, it is to retain our young people, the rising generation.” Duke, James T. "Latter-day Saints in a Secular World: What we have learned about Latter-day Saints from Social Research." Martin B Hickman 1999 Lecture, BYU College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences. 4 March 1999.


>With only 22% of Latter-day Saints born to U.S. active families remaining active lifelong and another 44% returning to the Church after periods of inactivity, the natural growth of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. appears to be below the level required to sustain a stable population. "The Law of the Harvest Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work" p 16 David G. Stewart, Jr.


>Study after study demonstrates a vast discrepancy between official LDS membership claims and participating or self-identified membership. I am not aware of a single large population-based self-identified affiliation study or national census that has come anywhere close to demonstrating parity with church membership claims. Nominal membership increases that far outstrip gains in active membership beg the question: what is growth? "The Law of the Harvest Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work" p 29 David G. Stewart, Jr.


>Because of high turnover, the actual growth rate in the number of Americans identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints between 1990 and 2001 was found to be similar to the overall population growth rate, for a proportional net growth rate of close to zero. "The Law of the Harvest Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work" p 19 David G. Stewart, Jr.