If you found out that the Golden Plates never existed, would you still be a Mormon?

[SoonerCoug]

Was Christ simply a great teacher and a glorified martyr? Personally, I think that if Christ had lived and died in the 19th century, then Christianity would never have come into existence.

The more modern a religion is, the more it has to stand up to scrutiny. The origin of the Quran and the Old Testament certainly don't stand up to scrutiny either.

By and large, the Book of Mormon does pretty well. A heck of a lot better than Dianetics--that's for sure.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There's a lot more mental gymnastics required to hold on to the simultaneous belief that the plates never physically existed while the church is still true than there is to believe that the plates were real, the Book of Mormon is true and that the Jaredites were contemporary with wooly mammoths.

Yeah, but the question wasn't, "would you still think the church is true", but "would you still be a Mormon?" It would be silly to use a phrase "the church is true" when you don't believe in the founding origins. A better question might be, "Is the church good?" or "Do I fit with this organization?" I know a lot of people who don't believe and still acknowledge the value of the church culturally, socially, and even spiritually, and want to participate. No mental gymnastics involved, just practical decision making.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There's a lot more mental gymnastics required to hold on to the simultaneous belief that the plates never physically existed while the church is still true than there is to believe that the plates were real, the Book of Mormon is true and that the Jaredites were contemporary with wooly mammoths.

There are so many assumptions in what you've written that it's hard to know where to start. But then I'm not the one talking about mammoths on what is, for me, a matter of faith.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Are you assuming that Joseph was hallucinating and he was a crazy person and that just happened to write an inspiring religious text?

I'm not assuming anything, other than the idea that Joseph sincerely believed everything he was experiencing was literally true.

I've heard that Joseph's brother was institutionalized for mental illness, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Certainly, the entire family had a history of visions.

My way of assuming isn't very different from your way of assuming things like Reformed Egyptian was a real language, etc. I assume that Joseph Smith was sincere and honest. I'm open to possibilities. That's all I'm saying. One of those possibilities is that visions came to his mind, rather than physical beings appearing before him.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Yeah, but the question wasn't, "would you still think the church is true", but "would you still be a Mormon?" It would be silly to use a phrase "the church is true" when you don't believe in the founding origins. A better question might be, "Is the church good?" or "Do I fit with this organization?" I know a lot of people who don't believe and still acknowledge the value of the church culturally, socially, and even spiritually, and want to participate. No mental gymnastics involved, just practical decision making.

Do you think it is really possible for The Church to make such an evolution, from a belief system to something akin to "a people?" It is an interesting thought, but I would think the central control over doctrine would make such an evolution impossible.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Are you assuming that he was able to convince 11 others to hallucinate with him?

The purpose of the 11 witnesses was to try to refute the very nonsense that SoonerCoug is attempting to promulgate here today.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Yeah, but the question wasn't, "would you still think the church is true", but "would you still be a Mormon?" It would be silly to use a phrase "the church is true" when you don't believe in the founding origins. A better question might be, "Is the church good?" or "Do I fit with this organization?" I know a lot of people who don't believe and still acknowledge the value of the church culturally, socially, and even spiritually, and want to participate. No mental gymnastics involved, just practical decision making.

Exactly. As I've said before, I am one of those persons. I think that the LDS Church has a particular role to play in the big scheme of dispersals (apostasies) and collections (restorations) of religious truth amongst humankind. I have faith, so to speak, that it is the part of the vineyard in which God would have me work. In that sense, the Church is the right framework for my spiritual development and has helped me immeasurably in my search for truth, knowledge, and a worthwhile life. It is a huge part of making me who I am--its fruits in my life are good, despite what reason tells me about its roots. But saying "the Church is true" in the conventional sense is kind of like saying "A reuben sandwich is true." The Church is an organization.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

One of those possibilities is that visions came to his mind, rather than physical beings appearing before him.

While there are many areas of Mormon doctrine and church history that are open to interpretation, this isn't one of them. The suggestion is so outrageous as to strain rational thought. There is no way the "magical vision" theory can be squared with the history; either he truthfully had the plates, or he didn't and he was lying. It cannot be both.

One might as well argue that Joseph himself was just a mythical creation of the church.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm a little late to the game on this one, but I cannot imagine how the JS story could square with there being no plates. Kinda seems pivotal to the whole thing.

Has anyone here read the book "View of the Hebrew" by Ethan Smith. I haven't read it yet and would like to hear what someone who has read it thinks. For more info search "View of the Hebrews" on wikipedia.org.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

But saying "the Church is true" in the conventional sense is kind of like saying "A reuben sandwich is true." It's an organization.

We're not going back to this conversation, are we? Was the Lord declaring the truth of a reuben sandwich in D&C 1?