Book of Mormon Hypothetical: How would LDS respond?

[_Sethbag]

Ray, this is me butting into your thing with Gaz, but I'd like to say that from my point of view, not only is Mormonism not true, but no other religion, that I've seen, has ever offered anything by way of evidence or proof that they in fact really do know the truth about the God who really, truly does exist. I'm left with the idea that nobody on Earth knows anything trustworthy about God, and that has implications to me. A God who exists, but doesn't let us know in any kind of rational or trustworthy way that he exists, may as well not exist.

[_Ray A]

Ray, this is me butting into your thing with Gaz, but I'd like to say that from my point of view, not only is Mormonism not true, but no other religion, that I've seen, has ever offered anything by way of evidence or proof that they in fact really do know the truth about the God who really, truly does exist. I'm left with the idea that nobody on Earth knows anything trustworthy about God, and that has implications to me. A God who exists, but doesn't let us know in any kind of rational or trustworthy way that he exists, may as well not exist.

Seth, you'd surely know Voltaire's saying, "If God didn't exist, he would have to be invented". I think that's what the religions have done. I really can't say I'm atheist, but I'm becoming more and more atheist to invented Gods. I quote Phillip Adams (my favourite atheist, incidentally), "the older I get, the less sure I am of anything".

[_Sethbag]

Yeah, I've seen that quote before. It's a good one.

I'm an atheist not only because I don't believe there's any evidence that there is a God, but also because the pattern of human beings having invented gods to believe in is so pervasive that it almost discredits the very idea of believing in God.

When people have cried wolf on the issue of God fifty thousand times, why should we believe the fifth thousand and first guy to come along and claim to speak for an Almighty?

The more I think about it, the more absurd becomes, in my mind, the very notion that the Almighty Creator of the Entire Universe would choose to manifest himself to his children by secretly meeting with one of them and instructing that person to go out and try to convince the rest of us that this meeting really happened. Surely this Creator would have to know that this method is catastrophically discredited, and almost impossible to take seriously.

[_Inconceivable]

If the Book of Mormon is not what it says, there is no God.

Hi Gaz.

You sure have a lot riding on 421 pages.

I think your line of thought is the reason why there are quite a few former Mormons that are now atheists. I fight the urge myself due to the twisted all or nothing culture I once belonged to.

I honestly believe you have had spiritual confirmations that the Book of Mormon is true - as I have. Many, many times. I even know the concepts better than most people I know. It used to be my favorite book.

Although the Book of Mormon is real and contains some quite profound wisdom, I cannot wish it true. I believe the confirmations I received were spiritual but were not from a spirit that actually knew of it's truthfulness any better than I did.

If, by some paradox, the evidence begins to mount to it's veracity, it will never change my opinion of Smith. If Smith translated it, he never read it. If he read it, he did not understand it. The book reveals to us what and who Smith really was.

It might be healthier to limit your absolutes. Let me help:

If the Book of Mormon is not what it says, there is no Mormon God.

[_Ray A]

I'm an atheist not only because I don't believe there's any evidence that there is a God, but also because the pattern of human beings having invented gods to believe in is so pervasive that it almost discredits the very idea of believing in God.

And I think this is what Dawkins is really atheist about. He leaves open a very minimal possibility for the existence of God, but one which is "highly improbable". See his debate with Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project. If you haven't read it, I'll link it for you later. But it can easily be googled by searching for something like "Richard Dawkins Francis Collins debate in Time Magazine".

When people have cried wolf on the issue of God fifty thousand times, why should we believe the fifth thousand and first guy to come along and claim to speak for an Almighty?

The more I think about it, the more absurd becomes, in my mind, the very notion that the Almighty Creator of the Entire Universe would choose to manifest himself to his children by secretly meeting with one of them and instructing that person to go out and try to convince the rest of us that this meeting really happened. Surely this Creator would have to know that this method is catastrophically discredited, and almost impossible to take seriously.

I think Joseph Smith experienced "something", and I think that even some critics have acknowledged this. If you read Marquardt's Inventing Mormonism, you'll see that contemporaries of Joseph Smith experienced equally powerful theophanies, but Joseph managed to go further than they did, including ending up in the quagmire of polygamy, which I'm quite certain no "god" would ever "authorise". I have my own theory about the production of the Book of Mormon, but even today I'm still reassessing everything I believe, and formerly believed.

Because I was not born into Mormonism I've never been "trapped" by the lifelong indoctrination, and I'm actually GLAD that I brought my children up away from all that. But converting to Mormonism, for me, was just a more "zealous" extension of my Catholic upbringing. I didn't "naturally" accept the idea of an anthropormorphic God. That was totally foreign to me, being a Catholic, but I eventually accepted it. But I subsequently wondered why any "exalted god" would share 99.4% of his genes with chimpanzees. So I abandoned this idea long ago. I think the "gravitational pull" (for many anyway) of Mormonism is due factors I'll examine and explain at a later date, but I don't believe this has anything to do with "only truth". I had a Muslim workmate who told me that he couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe in the Book of Mormon, yet he told me that every verse of the Qur'an gave him "spiritual rapture". I'm not exaggerating. Yet when the twin towers fell, he rejoiced! This isn't God. This is a human experience which deserves more satisfactory explanations. I hope to pursue this more in the future.

[_Ray A]

If the Book of Mormon is not what it says, there is no Mormon God.

Amen! Inc.

[_ludwigm]

Ray,

I just don't see how if one religion on earth fails to be true, that God could not exist. It's sort of like a Catholic saying that if the Pope isn't true, then God doesn't exist. Or a Muslims saying that if the Qur'an isn't true, God could not exist.

...
There are only three churchs that can be true.
...
In the Sacred Grove Joseph Smith met and spoke with both the Father and the Son. The very fact that he saw them both standing side by side was a huge doctrinal restoration as the the very nature of our Creator.

... if one religion ... There are only three ...
--- There are only 2473 true church, not one, not three. This is my thesis. Please refute it!
(Why 2473? Because I said so!)

In the Sacred Grove Joseph Smith met and spoke ...
--- I'm sorry, no. Joseph Smith has said he met and spake. This makes the case a little different ...

[_Gazelam]

Ray,

I'm writing a reply for another thread, Gaz, but maybe you could explain the above. Where did Christ declare Judaism apostate?

Seriously, if the church had not apostasized, then why would he have called Peter and the rest of the twelve? Why did the Priesthood need to be restored on the Mount of Transfiguration? Why did he need to puge the temple? Why did they fail to recognize their own God? Why did they cricify their own God?

If the High Priest Caiaphas was the true head of the church who honored the office he held, how was he so far removed from the Spirit of the Lord that he couldent even recognize his God standing in front of him?

Rule in Gods earthly kingdom is by legal administrators appointed by the Lord. Church officers are chosen by other church officers as the Holy Spirit directs. One of the many sure signs of total apostacy is the appointment of religious leaders by civil authorities. This was the fallen spiritual state into which the divinely approved Jewish religion had slipped. Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, was appointed high priest by the Roman procurator Valerious Gratus (Pilates predecessor).

Matt. 16:1-12, chp.23, chp.26

[_Dr. Shades]

Hypothetical: Suppose that LDS were confronted with rock solid evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it is purported to be. That it was not transmitted by God or the Prophet Joseph Smith, but by some other person or persons?

It's not exactly a mere hypothetical anymore. Your scenario has already played out in the precise same manner with another item of Mormon scripture: The Book of Abraham.

So, with that in mind, history has already given us the specific answer to each of your questions. I parrot them here:

How would LDS respond as individuals and as a church?

Most would have no idea that there was anything amiss.

Would the majority of LDS or the LDS Church:

1. Dismiss the evidence out of hand?
2. Revise LDS history to include the new evidence?
3. Re-evaluate Joseph Smith as Prophet?
4. Retain the Book of Mormon as-is?
5. Retain the Book of Mormon and re-classify it?
6. Other?

It would be a combination of #1 and #4. FARMS, with the tacit approval of the brethren, would delve a bit into #5 for apologetic purposes.

Bonus Question: Could the Book of Mormon be reclassified and still hold it's status in the religious minds of LDS?

Yes, easily. In the Book of Abraham's case, that's already happened in large degree within the world of Internet Mormonism.

The Book of Mormon itself inched tenuously forward with the "principal ancestors/among the ancestors" switch in the version meant for outsiders' consumption.

Among the Chapel Mormon rank and file, there's been nary a whisper.

[_Gazelam]

Shades,

I don't know what your getign at with your whole Book of Abraham thing. The Book of Abraham is one of the best proofs of Joseph Smiths claims as a Prophet. It matches Book of Abrahams that have been discovered since that time, and the doctrines expressed are perfectly in harmony with other doctrines in that it not only supports but builds upon them.

The explanation he gave of fac.2 has shown to be solid and in agreement with known understanding of others like it.

Gaz