What would it take for you to go back?

[_Jason Bourne]

Plural marriage, for a start.

The plan of salvation being a class system.

If you don't live up to the standard of perfection, cross all the I's and dot all the t's, you're separated from your family for eternity. It doesn't matter how nice the conditions are. The thought of being separated from your family forever is hell in any decent person's book.

These are certainly vlaid concerns. It seems that a fully loving God would avoid some of this. Of course when I have asked fundie EVs about the way God operates and hell and all the issue of evil and suffering the answer they have is God is Holy and perfect. We are not. His ways are above our ways. Feeble humans want to bend God to their image and not bend their will to his. We are his pottery and if he dashed us to pieces we have no right to complain.

Still such behavior from an omnipotent creator seems hard to square at times with emotional and sentient beings that can even ask about this God's existence. And indeed, this God seems modeled on a lot of man made cultural things as well as the monarchical systems that existed as this theology developed.

However, I doubt anyone would kick this God anywhere if he was real and really appeared to you. You most likely would cower in terror or worship him.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Mormon God claims to want his children to be happy, and they can do this through the plan of salvation, living the LDS precepts. But let's see the actions rather than the words. Less than one percent of all humanity have ever heard of this plan. You'd think that if God wanted his people to be happy he'd spread the joy around a bit more effectively.

The Mormon God insists on pigeon-holing people's mortal (and eternal) roles by their gender. That is so off the mark I don't know where to begin. No woman wants to bear children for eternity. No one. Even the most faithful of Mormon women will cringe at the idea. Particularly if they have the concept of a Heavenly Mother to go by. Because of the no-interaction rule, this relegates the celestial mother to one of a spirit incubator. Yeehaw. Chickens get more glory.

The Mormon God is a throwback to the pharasiacal arrogance and pomposity. A caffeine drink here, a double pierced earring there. I just can't get behind a God that is so micromanagerial that he needs to have his hand in such mundane and irrelevant details.

Personally I think a lot of the gender issues and micro obedience edicts are more a control thing by the leadership than they are from the Mormon God.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think the Book of Abraham is as close to a smoking gun as we have. It simply is indefensible as an ancient scripture. Everything is wrong about it: both the alleged translation and the anachronistic text.

A plausible response it that the scrolls were a catylist for revelation given to Joseph Smith and that they were not a direct translation. In that case anachronistic texts woul be expected. This is not a proof beyond a doubt that it is false though I agree it is high on the problem list.

The Book of Mormon is also pretty obviously not what it claims to be, but I don't want to start a fight about that right now.

I think one could argue that the verdict is out on that and while the Church would not agree that it is inspired fiction for many that does work.

Add to these two bogus scriptures Joseph Smith's behavior in marrying women behind his wife's back,

Presonally this is one of the biggest issues because it addresses the character issue and that impact whether I can trust his claims. Still, this does not mean he was lying. God really could have told him to do this, or God had spoken to him but he was a fallen prophet on this point at leats.

his moneydigging days,

For me at least this is a non issue. I just don't think the folly of doi g this while very young with pressure from his father and given the culture he lived in can be used to prove that Church is false.

and his less-than-stellar record of honesty and integrity, and you have some serious problems to consider.

What other less then stellar items of honesty and integrity are you referring to?

[_Some Schmo]

However, I doubt anyone would kick this God anywhere if he was real and really appeared to you. You most likely would cower in terror or worship him.

I highly doubt it. I'm just not the worshipping type, and I'm not afraid of ghosts.

[_Ren]

However, I doubt anyone would kick this God anywhere if he was real and really appeared to you. You most likely would cower in terror or worship him.

If such a being did appear to me, then yes. Maybe I would cower and 'give in'.
I'm only human after all.

But would I necessarily be proud of doing so? I think that's the 'real' question...


I'll say this though - I'd more willingly bow to the God of Mormonism than the God of the average Evangelical.

[_Jason Bourne]

If the people who were supposed to have written the Book of Mormon were supposed to have come from the Middle East, but DNA shows the American Indians did not, I'm not sure what else one needs. You have to jump through some pretty big hoops to make the Book of Mormon work in the face of this evidence.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the idea the Indians are all direct descendants of Lehi, that they family of Lehi mingled with a small group and that they were in fact limited in the geography. If such is the case we would not expect to find their DNA in the population. I understand that many leaders have taken a stance that the Indians ALL are descended from Lehi. In fact the D&C has a revelation directing missionaries to go the the borders of the Lamanites to preach and that Zion would be located in the borders by the Lamanites. So perhaps this position can be argued to be official from that stand point. Still that this seems not to be a deal killer at least in and of itself. Even with the other stuff you and Runtu post to say WE KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE seems a strech. To say due to this and other evidences we have concluded that we no longer believe it is true is much better.

But to tell you the truth, that's not as compelling evidence for me as the simple fact that Joe Smith was a known con man. Does it make any sense to any intellectually honest person that the god of the universe would choose a con man to restore his church, or is it more likely he made it up? Again, start aiming for those hoops to make that work for you.

You say it is a fact he was a con man? What are your facts? No opinions please. And by the way I am not trying to make it work for me. I do no think the LDS Church is the ONE TRUE Church but I do not know it is not for certain and I do think it has some God given truth and some of that came through Joseph Smith.

There's absolutely no question that the only way a person will justify or rationalize away these things is if they're motivated to do so due to an investment in the theology/religion. No otherwise sane person need try to explain it away with stating the obvious: it's a hoax

Why is it obvious?

[_mocnarf]

I've been asked this a few times, and my answer is different today than it was a few years ago. Since "church" is such a part of my family, and it does at least bring us together in a common community, and because I don't believe any "church" is truer than another, I would consider returning if higher-ups proclaimed:

"Okay, we admit Joseph made it all up; we don't get any more "inspiration" than any other human being, but we are doing the best we can to teach a good lifestyle, and if there is a God, we hope that teaching the Golden Rule to our members will create a culture and society that will serve all equally. We are no better, nor any worse, than other spiritual organizations, but we enjoy our life, and will do the best we can to continue that positive lifestyle."
Then maybe I'd consider it.

BishopRic...... your spot-on.... I could go back if this were to occur. But the church would be massively different. They would have to come up with difference reasoning to justify the ordinacnce. They could nolonger justify stuff that makes no common sense by saying "We don't know why... but God demands it and we obey." I rather wish such an oganization did exist. I would likely join. I suppose the Unitarians come close to this. But my TBM family would never follow me there, so it would have to be an apocalyptic change in the LDS church before I could become active again.

[_Some Schmo]

If the people who were supposed to have written the Book of Mormon were supposed to have come from the Middle East, but DNA shows the American Indians did not, I'm not sure what else one needs. You have to jump through some pretty big hoops to make the Book of Mormon work in the face of this evidence.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the idea the Indians are all direct descendants of Lehi, that they family of Lehi mingled with a small group and that they were in fact limited in the geography. If such is the case we would not expect to find their DNA in the population. I understand that many leaders have taken a stance that the Indians ALL are descended from Lehi. In fact the D&C has a revelation directing missionaries to go the the borders of the Lamanites to preach and that Zion would be located in the borders by the Lamanites. So perhaps this position can be argued to be official from that stand point. Still that this seems not to be a deal killer at least in and of itself. Even with the other stuff you and Runtu post to say WE KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE seems a strech. To say due to this and other evidences we have concluded that we no longer believe it is true is much better.

But to tell you the truth, that's not as compelling evidence for me as the simple fact that Joe Smith was a known con man. Does it make any sense to any intellectually honest person that the god of the universe would choose a con man to restore his church, or is it more likely he made it up? Again, start aiming for those hoops to make that work for you.

You say it is a fact he was a con man? What are your facts? No opinions please. And by the way I am not trying to make it work for me. I do no think the LDS Church is the ONE TRUE Church but I do not know it is not for certain and I do think it has some God given truth and some of that came through Joseph Smith.

There's absolutely no question that the only way a person will justify or rationalize away these things is if they're motivated to do so due to an investment in the theology/religion. No otherwise sane person need try to explain it away with stating the obvious: it's a hoax

Why is it obvious?

Well, you'll never actually catch me saying that I know the church isn't true. I don't know it, just like I don't know for sure that the sun will rise in the morning. But based on my experience and the evidence at hand, I'm pretty confident that the sun will rise.

I also don't know that OJ Simpson killed his wife. I wasn't there. How do I know for sure? A case was made for him not doing it that convinced 12 jurors to return a "not guilty" decision. But you know what? I still think he did it. That's what common sense tells me based on the evidence. No amount of "Simpson's not a murderer" apologetic gymnastics will likely convince me otherwise.

It's a matter of probabilities, Jason. Given the evidence, it is highly improbable the church is what it says it is. It seems obvious based on the evidence (not to mention a modicum of common sense).

[_BishopRic]

I've been asked this a few times, and my answer is different today than it was a few years ago. Since "church" is such a part of my family, and it does at least bring us together in a common community, and because I don't believe any "church" is truer than another, I would consider returning if higher-ups proclaimed:

"Okay, we admit Joseph made it all up; we don't get any more "inspiration" than any other human being, but we are doing the best we can to teach a good lifestyle, and if there is a God, we hope that teaching the Golden Rule to our members will create a culture and society that will serve all equally. We are no better, nor any worse, than other spiritual organizations, but we enjoy our life, and will do the best we can to continue that positive lifestyle."
Then maybe I'd consider it.

BishopRic...... your spot-on.... I could go back if this were to occur. But the church would be massively different. They would have to come up with difference reasoning to justify the ordinacnce. They could nolonger justify stuff that makes no common sense by saying "We don't know why... but God demands it and we obey." I rather wish such an oganization did exist. I would likely join. I suppose the Unitarians come close to this. But my TBM family would never follow me there, so it would have to be an apocalyptic change in the LDS church before I could become active again.

Exactly! That's why I said I would consider going back with the conditions, to be with the family in a doctrinal culture that I could live with. And yes, of course all the ordinances would be symbolic rather than literal (I remember fretting over forgetting my temple name; I wasn't going to be "let in" unless I could remember!).

[_Runtu]

It is not unreasonable to assume that the idea the Indians are all direct descendants of Lehi, that they family of Lehi mingled with a small group and that they were in fact limited in the geography. If such is the case we would not expect to find their DNA in the population. I understand that many leaders have taken a stance that the Indians ALL are descended from Lehi. In fact the D&C has a revelation directing missionaries to go the the borders of the Lamanites to preach and that Zion would be located in the borders by the Lamanites. So perhaps this position can be argued to be official from that stand point. Still that this seems not to be a deal killer at least in and of itself. Even with the other stuff you and Runtu post to say WE KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE seems a strech. To say due to this and other evidences we have concluded that we no longer believe it is true is much better.

I haven't said I KNOW it's not true. I believe it to be highly unlikely that it's true. Nothing's impossible, but it sure doesn't look like the true church to me.

You say it is a fact he was a con man? What are your facts? No opinions please. And by the way I am not trying to make it work for me. I do no think the LDS Church is the ONE TRUE Church but I do not know it is not for certain and I do think it has some God given truth and some of that came through Joseph Smith.

I think his glass-looking escapades, which no one disputes, are pretty good evidence that he was a con man. That he used the same method to produce the Book of Mormon doesn't inspire confidence (no pun intended).

Why is it obvious?

I figure that the best way to tell if it's a hoax is to ask yourself how you would respond to a similar story from someone else.

A man seeks buried treasure using a peepstone.
He claims to have found buried plates which he translates using said peepstone.
The book he translates is littered with anachronisms and describes no known civilization in the ancient New World.
He essentially quits working once the book is produced and lives off the kindness of his followers thereafter.
He continually revises his theology, usually in response to new information or a crisis within his church.
He promises wealth untold for people who invest in his unauthorized bank and then flees the scene when the bank fails.
He claims to translate Egyptian, but his translation is found to be erroneous.
Unbeknownst to his wife, he takes at least 33 women as plural wives, 8 of whom are already married.
When a follower decides to expose the plural marriages, he destroys the printing press that would have been used to expose him.

If the man's name were James or Haroldson or Hancock, you wouldn't even consider the man's claims, would you?