If the Book of Mormon were true, what then?

[_Corpsegrinder]

Just because we choose to not respond to your militant atheism does not mean that we have not subjected our beliefs to criticsm. We just don't choose to do it your way.

But you choose to do it my way when you confront Mormonism...why the double standard?

And for what it's worth, I'm not an athiest.

[_MCB]

I'm not an athiest.

Ah ok--- then what is your belief system? That would certainly help with communication.

[_Darth J]

If the Book of Mormon is true, then George Romero and Max Brooks were right.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15510

[_Corpsegrinder]

I'm not an athiest.

Ah ok--- then what is your belief system? That would certainly help with communication.

Sure, I'll send you a PM, but probably not 'til later.

[_son of Ishmael]

If it were true I'd still have to conclude that the church was in apostasy, being totally bereft of revelation since the 19th century.

I think this is spot on. I'm no longer a Mormon, but I'm a Christian. One of the things I had to do when making the transition was figure out what Mormon things I could or should keep. A lot had to go. But, the contents of the Book of Mormon was pretty much all in the I-can-keep-it category. Historically the book is out to lunch, but it's pretty much plain vanilla 19th century Protestantism. Once you ignore the controversies specific to the 19th century, like the infant baptism and name of the church debates, the rest of the book really doesn't say anything unique.

In fact when a Mormon asks me what I believe now I'm pretty likely to answer, "Well, pretty much what is in the Book of Mormon." It's easier than trying to explain theology and doctrine to them and it throws them for a loop because the next thing out of their mouth is usually something like, "What about all of the stuff that is unique to the LDS church?" or "But Christians believe in the Trinity and the Book of Mormon doesn't." To which I can easily answer, "There isn't anything unique in the Book of Mormon" and "The Book of Mormon is Trinitarian."

I'm pretty convinced at this point that Mormons don't actually read the Book of Mormon for information. They either read modern Mormonism into the Book or Mormon, or they get excited about the passages on generic good behavior in chapters like Mosiah 1-5 or Alma 5. When you have that mindset of course the Book of Mormon is proof for the truthfulness of the LDS church, you've manufactured the proof before you even go looking for it.

When I left the church I tried to maintain the idea that I was still a Christian, but as I turned my microscope from the Book of Mormon and put it on the Bible I quickly realize that it was full of problems too. Someone could easily start a similar post called “If the Bible were true, what then?” and get a lot of the same responses about the legitimacy of all Christian religions.

[_Albion]

Personally, I think that Alice in Wonderland will be proven true long before the Book of Mormon.....they are both products of a similar time period but the first has the advantage of coming from a stronger literary tradition and makes no effort to be anything other than a work of fiction.

[_Aristotle Smith]

When I left the church I tried to maintain the idea that I was still a Christian, but as I turned my microscope from the Book of Mormon and put it on the Bible I quickly realize that it was full of problems too. Someone could easily start a similar post called “If the Bible were true, what then?” and get a lot of the same responses about the legitimacy of all Christian religions.

Two quick points. I don't think you would get responses in the form of "If the Bible were true, then you should join church X." But that is precisely the claim that the LDS church is making, "If the Book of Mormon is true, then you should join the LDS church." I think most Christians would realize that the first claim is stupid, and therefore they don't make it, while the LDS still make the latter claim even though it's equally stupid. Even the most fire breathing fundamentalist is still going to recognize a range, perhaps a limited range, of acceptable churches with which one could in good conscience associate. LDS don't say, "Oh, since the Book of Mormon is true you really need to join our church, or the Community of Christ, or the Bickertonites." If they did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Second point, the Bible does have problems, but for a whole host of reasons I think they are of a much different nature than are the problems with the Book of Mormon. The bottom line is I'm comfortable living with the problems in the Bible, but I'm not comfortable living with the problems in the Book of Mormon.

[_son of Ishmael]

When I left the church I tried to maintain the idea that I was still a Christian, but as I turned my microscope from the Book of Mormon and put it on the Bible I quickly realize that it was full of problems too. Someone could easily start a similar post called “If the Bible were true, what then?” and get a lot of the same responses about the legitimacy of all Christian religions.

Two quick points. I don't think you would get responses in the form of "If the Bible were true, then you should join church X." But that is precisely the claim that the LDS church is making, "If the Book of Mormon is true, then you should join the LDS church." I think most Christians would realize that the first claim is stupid, and therefore they don't make it, while the LDS still make the latter claim even though it's equally stupid. Even the most fire breathing fundamentalist is still going to recognize a range, perhaps a limited range, of acceptable churches with which one could in good conscience associate. LDS don't say, "Oh, since the Book of Mormon is true you really need to join our church, or the Community of Christ, or the Bickertonites." If they did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Second point, the Bible does have a lot of problems, but for a whole host of reasons I think they are of a much different nature than are the problems with the Book of Mormon. The bottom line is I'm comfortable living with the problems in the Bible, but I'm not comfortable living with the problems in the Book of Mormon.

First point. I do think you would see the same type of responses but by the larger Christian community. They would be telling the non-Christian world “See the Bible is true so therefore you should become Christian” Inside the Christian community there would still be infighting about which flavor of Christianity is the right one just like inside the Mormon community. The Catholic Church looks at all other Christian denominations as spin offs just as the Monson flavored Mormons look at the FLDS, RLDs and others as just spin offs

Second point. The Bible does have its problems they are just better hid. The more I looked and read the more I saw them. When I learned that the whole “he who is without sin, cast the first stone” story was added in to the new testament hundreds of years later I really started to dig and I can no longer put any trust in the Bible either.

[_Corpsegrinder]

I don't think you would get responses in the form of "If the Bible were true, then you should join church X." But that is precisely the claim that the LDS church is making, "If the Book of Mormon is true, then you should join the LDS church." I think most Christians would realize that the first claim is stupid, and therefore they don't make it, while the LDS still make the latter claim even though it's equally stupid. Even the most fire breathing fundamentalist is still going to recognize a range, perhaps a limited range, of acceptable churches with which one could in good conscience associate. LDS don't say, "Oh, since the Book of Mormon is true you really need to join our church, or the Community of Christ, or the Bickertonites." If they did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In other words...

Mainstream Mormons say: "If you believe in the Book of Mormon, then you should do what the old dudes in Salt Lake City tell you to do.”

Christians say: "If you believe in the Bible, then you should do what the old dudes of ages past tell you to do...with allowances for the modern age that we live in.”

Second point, the Bible does have problems, but for a whole host of reasons I think they are of a much different nature than are the problems with the Book of Mormon.

Your second point being that the Christ Narrative (since you're a Christian) boasts a greater evidentiary credibility than the Book of Mormon. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will, however, concede that as an archetype and a symbol, Jesus Christ is indeed very compelling.

Personally, I think that Alice in Wonderland will be proven true long before the Book of Mormon.....they are both products of a similar time period but the first has the advantage of coming from a stronger literary tradition and makes no effort to be anything other than a work of fiction.

Why so cynical, Albion? As works of fiction, both Alice in Wonderland and the Book of Mormon contain literary truths, symbolic truths, and historic truths (insofar as they encapsulate the prevailing mindsets of their respective eras). Ditto for the tale of Adam and Eve in the Garden, the tale of Noah and the Ark, the tale of Jonah and the Whale, and so on.

[_Albion]

I guess I was under the mistaken idea that the thread was about whether or not the Book of Mormon was true...that is, a revelation from God. I don't think those who take it as such care too much whether or not other people like it for just its literary content.