What (If Anything) Would Convince You That The Church Is Not What It Claims To Be?

[Buzzard]

Perhaps this is something we could all agree with. However, would such a letter from the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve suffice for you?

Well, if they then dissolved the Corporation of the First Presidency and sold off church assets, we would not have a choice.

Pssst...ain't gonna happen.

[citizen28]

It would take one of several things to make me question the church: 1. Christ / God / some other deity personally and physically visits me and specifically tells me that The church is unequivocally false and unredeemable 2. The Spirit contradicts itself and bears testimony (stronger that it already has) that the church is false 3. The first presidency comes out and state that everything has been made up Short of those three things nothing would convince me unequivocally that the church is anything less than what it claims to be. BTW: I can see some introspective value in these types of questions, It sort of lets you evaluate your testimony but it should be kept in perspective.

Many skeptics have said that if a supreme being or angel appeared to them, they would question their own sanity rather than their religious disbelief, though in practice I wonder if this would really be the case. I met several people on my mission who claimed to have been visited by Jesus. I really can't imagine what that would be like.

[citizen28]

3. I'm am so convinced Joseph Smith was inspired to restore the ancient religion that the only thing that could make me turn is by doubting he was 'divinely' inspired, or perhaps doubting a modern leader, by which I would still think of myself as a Mormon in a lighter sense because I would still follow the teachings. I would still think of them as legitimate. Or I could see me doubting a local leader, I don't always have much faith in them, though if it turned me away, it would probably be only an excuse for laziness in some personal desire to not go to church or to avoid callings, but that would only be an excuse. I could become a Catholic or some other organized religion with solid self understanding and an assumed divinely inspired leader..

I think there is a growing minority of people who believe strongly in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, but think that the modern church has gotten off track a little bit (Daymon Smith and the Denver Snuffer come to mind).

Edited March 2, 2012 by citizen28

[citizen28]

I don't look at "belief/unbelief" as an either/or scenario. So I can't answer the original question. But if you asked what it would take to get me to stop going to Church, I would have to say the only thing that comes to mind is if the Church started practicing polygamy again. Other than that, I'm pretty flexible.

I agree that there is a belief spectrum of some sort, but I look at belief pragmatically in that if one's actions are motivated by belief in God or the church I consider them believers and vice-versa. For example, many people claim to be agnostic, but in practice they live their lives as if no religion is true just as an avowed atheist would.

Certainly the church could reinstitute more egregious practices than polygamy, but I think we all know that this is a very remote possibility. Even if polygamy were brought back, I assume it would be mostly voluntary as it was before.

Edited March 2, 2012 by citizen28

[cinepro]

Certainly the church could reinstitute more egregious practices than polygamy, but I think we all know that all these things are a very remote possibility. Even if polygamy was brought back, I assume it would be mostly voluntary as it was before.

"Mostly voluntary"?

[citizen28]

"Mostly voluntary"?

I don't quite understand. It was assumed to be a requirement for exaltation, but still many if not most of the laypeople chose not to engage in the practice.

I suppose if the church brought back polygamy it may be worth leaving the church if only so you wouldn't be forced to defend the practice to outsiders. Polygamy would likely lead to complete social isolation for the church.

Edited March 2, 2012 by citizen28

[wenglund]

Like Brade, in order for me to be convinced that the Church isn't what it claims to be, I would have to shift my trust and faith from God to man, and concern myself only with the things and ways of man, as they relate to the Church. In other words, I would need to ignore what the Church is really about, and view it simply through the limited lens of my own fallible human perceptions and methods. At this point I can't see a good reason to do that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Jeff K.]

What do you interpret as the spirit?

If one cannot understand a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, then they have never experienced it. Rather try explaining the color orange to a blind man who has never seen.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ex members bearing their un-testimony. That would convince me. Perhaps they could tell me that "I don't really understand the relevant arguments" or that "I am delusional". That would help.

[Brade]

Like Brade, in order for me to be convinced that the Church isn't what it claims to be, I would have to shift my trust and faith from God to man, and concern myself only with the things and ways of man, as they relate to the Church. In other words, I would need to ignore what the Church is really about, and view it simply through the limited lens of my own fallible human perceptions and methods. At this point I can't see a good reason to do that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the underhanded insult, Wade.

[wenglund]

Thanks for the underhanded insult, Wade.

What about my comment could you possibly imagine was underhanded and insulting to you? I though I was taking you at your word and accepting of your respective view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Anything else you can think of

For me, at this point, unmitigated pride and sin would tip me toward unbeleif; or some other unprotected exposure to the enemy of my soul. I most humbly and graetfully submit that I do know, wihtout equivocation, that the truth claims that I know are true are indeed true.

[zelder]

The Book of Mormon is the keystone. You'd have to totally crush all evidence suggesting that the book is what it claims to be and prove that where it came from is not what Joseph claimed. I realize that there is evidence against the Book of Mormon but there is evidence for it as well and it's pretty impressive. Couple that with the fact that no book on earth has moved me like the Book of Mormon, I don't see any way that someone could convice me that the church is not true.

Edited March 2, 2012 by zelder

[Brade]

Like Brade, in order for me to be convinced that the Church isn't what it claims to be, I would have to shift my trust and faith from God to man, and concern myself only with the things and ways of man, as they relate to the Church. In other words, I would need to ignore what the Church is really about, and view it simply through the limited lens of my own fallible human perceptions and methods. At this point I can't see a good reason to do that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This isn't a description of how I view my situation and if you changed your view I doubt you'd view it this way either. If you did end up becoming like me it would not be that you shifted your trust from God to man, because you wouldn't believe there was a god from which to shift. The way you say it sounds like I went, "Hmmm, hey God, screw you. I'm not going to listen to you and instead I'm going to listen to Richard Dawkins." I didn't "shift my trust from God to man". I made a decision based on the best available evidence I have a my disposal.

[maxrep12]

I would have to shift my trust and faith from God to man

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The faith of a mere mustard seed moves mountains, or so they...

Have you been on the operating table before? Was faith placed under the heading of God or Man? I guess the appropriate answer is both. By throwing a bone to both God and Man, all bases are covered, and the outcome has been now sufficeintly fogged. At this point then, neither Man nor God can take singular credit for fetching this bone on their own. Yes, I think thats how it shall be played. An accredited surgeon and a blessing appeases all.

[wenglund]

This isn't a description of how I view my situation and if you changed your view I doubt you'd view it this way either. If you did end up becoming like me it would not be that you shifted your trust from God to man, because you wouldn't believe there was a god from which to shift. The way you say it sounds like I went, "Hmmm, hey God, screw you. I'm not going to listen to you and instead I'm going to listen to Richard Dawkins." I didn't "shift my trust from God to man". I made a decision based on the best available evidence I have a my disposal.

I still don't see the underhanded insult, even with your caricature of what I said. I wasn't aware that you never believed in God (and thus never trusted in him), and so on that basis it couldn't be the same for me as it was for you since I have and do believe in God and trust him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The faith of a mere mustard seed moves mountains, or so they...

Have you been on the operating table before? Was faith placed under the heading of God or Man? I guess the appropriate answer is both. By throwing a bone to both God and Man, all bases are covered, and the outcome has been now sufficeintly fogged. At this point then, neither Man nor God can take singular credit for fetching this bone on their own. Yes, I think thats how it shall be played. An accredited surgeon and a blessing appeases all.

In regards to the things of man, I have no problem placing my trust in man. Whereas, in regards to the things of God, it makes most sense to me to put the preponderance of my faith in him. But, that may just be me. Were I to one day think otherwise (I doubt that I ever will), then I don't see how it wouldn't adversely affect my faith in God and my view of the restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

My overal assessment of the best available historical evidence has convinced me that many of the Church's claims are unlikely to be true. I would believe those claims despite the evidence, however, if I also sufficiently trusted that spiritual experience were a valid means of apprehending the truth of those sorts of claims. However, I don't sufficiently trust spiritual experience as a means of truth-getting and so I'm left with how I am compelled to assess the best available historical evidence.

I was thinking about this issue in our other discussion and this is what I came up with.

Suppose there was a letter discovered which was a confession of Joseph Smith that it was all a hoax- detailing at every point how he pulled it off.

It is written on paper which is known to have been in Joseph's possession because it is the same identical paper used by Joseph in other letters. The ink is the same identical ink, and to really clinch the deal, there is DNA on the pages which match that of Joseph's descendants.

What would I do? Honestly I am not sure, but here is one possibility.

The next day, I would start my own church based on every bit of doctrine in the LDS church. I would keep all the scriptures as fictional, but nevertheless of great spiritual value. I would keep the belief that God is a man, and that we can be deified and become like him. I would keep the temple just as it is.

The bottom line, for me, is that all these beliefs function to make my world view comprehensive and incredibly meaningful.

Just as one picks a philosophical position which seems "right" and "clicks" with your personality- Mormonism does that with my personality.

Suppose we found a similar letter from Copernicus saying that he made it all up- and that it wasn't "true".

Would that change the truth that the earth goes around the sun?

[mfbukowski]

I think my worldview is very much in line with yours. The historical issues didn't bother me much until I began questioning my interpretation of my spiritual experiences.

Why do you do that?

How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

[citizen28]

If one cannot understand a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, then they have never experienced it. Rather try explaining the color orange to a blind man who has never seen.

In other words, along with the manifestation of the Holy Ghost comes the sure knowledge that what one is experiencing is the Holy Ghost? Is it possible to receive a manifestation of the Holy Ghost without knowing what the Holy Ghost is? On the other hand, is it possible to feel inspired by the Joseph Smith story (for example) and not actually be feeling the Holy Ghost?

[citizen28]

For me, at this point, unmitigated pride and sin would tip me toward unbeleif; or some other unprotected exposure to the enemy of my soul. I most humbly and graetfully submit that I do know, wihtout equivocation, that the truth claims that I know are true are indeed true.

I know several people who believe with all their hearts in Mormonism but find themselves lacking the willpower to live it. There are also many proud believers and unbelievers as well as humble believers and unbelievers. In other words, I'm not certain that sin or pride directly causes unbelief.

[citizen28]

The Book of Mormon is the keystone. You'd have to totally crush all evidence suggesting that the book is what it claims to be and prove that where it came from is not what Joseph claimed. I realize that there is evidence against the Book of Mormon but there is evidence for it as well and it's pretty impressive. Couple that with the fact that no book on earth has moved me like the Book of Mormon, I don't see any way that someone could convice me that the church is not true.

There are several Mormon offshoots that believe in the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith. I think the main clincher is whether or not someone believes that Thomas S. Monson is God's prophet on the earth today. On that claim rest all the truth claims of the LDS Church.

[citizen28]

Why do you do that?

How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

What I began to question was the idea that the good feelings and experiences I had at church were verification of objective, universally applicable truth.

[mfbukowski]

What I began to question was the idea that the good feelings and experiences I had at church were verification of objective, universally applicable truth.

What kind of truth is that? Can you give me an example of a truth that is universally applicable?

Why do you think such a "thing" exists? Isn't truth a property of sentences- of linguistic formulations? Perhaps linguistic formulations which give us justified beliefs- justified perhaps by experience?

[Jeff K.]

The Holy Ghost would give you the knowledge and it is distinct from being "inspired" which is wonderful, but not the same.