Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: oceanluvr ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:09PM

I give it <10 % in the next 10 years

50% in 20 years

100% in 30 years'

Of course I have no credentials for any of this.

The CoC basically did this

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: nickname ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:15PM

I think that would be a pretty desperate step for them to take. A lot of Mormons base their whole membership in the Morg on the truthfulness of the BoM. If they admit it isn't true, they're going to lose a lot of really solid members! These are members who would probably never have gone looking for the truth if the Morg hadn't told them and wouldn't believe someone like us if we'd told them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brethren,adieu ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:16PM

They already have, sort of. Russell nelson gave a conference talk a couple of years ago, wherein he stated , " Tell your friends that the Book of Mormon is not a history, and it is not fiction. It is another testament of Jesus Christ."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jersey Girl ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:20PM

When pigs fly over the temple....Unless they totally revamp, distance from Joe Smith, and become just another Protestant church.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stillburned ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 01:49PM

I was going to say when pigs fly out of my a$$....but your response expresses the thought with much more class and couth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cludgie ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:20PM

They've already obliquely acknowledge it by saying, "We may never discover the signs of Nephite and Lamanite presence," or some such. But what they meant was to quit worrying oneself by looking for signs of actual history. Just be good little, problem-free believers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: amos2 ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:26PM

Maybe Uncle Dale would have an opinion on this.

I've read some opinions here that the LDS church will inevitably follow the RLDS in downplaying the BoM.
I disagree.
I think it's apples and oranges.
The RLDS church was never a "major" religion. It was always a small sect without a territorial empire, massive land holdings, massive financial holdings, and not a major national and international corporation.
The LDS church is, essentially, a fortune-500 corporation existing for its own preservation and dividends to its financial interests. I don't think that in the foreseeable future backing off the BoM would help their bottom line.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Uncle Dale ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 07:16PM

amos2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe Uncle Dale would have an opinion on this.
>
> I've read some opinions here that the LDS church
> will inevitably follow the RLDS in downplaying the
> BoM.
> I disagree.
> I think it's apples and oranges.
> The RLDS church was never a "major" religion. It
> was always a small sect without a territorial
> empire, massive land holdings, massive financial
> holdings, and not a major national and
> international corporation.
> The LDS church is, essentially, a fortune-500
> corporation existing for its own preservation and
> dividends to its financial interests. I don't
> think that in the foreseeable future backing off
> the BoM would help their bottom line.


I suppose that the MOST that The Brethren would ever
allow would be quiet whispers saying that members would
not lose their TRs, for denying the book's historicity
in equally quiet whispers. And Packer would obviously
oppose even that sort of toleration of the whispers.

The day may come when a member who does not believe the
BoM to be true will still be excommunicated, but for
"not following counsel," rather than BoM disbelief.

It will NEVER go beyond that, unless the Mormon Church
fragments in some unexpected, spectacular way.

UD

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Chicken N. Backpacks ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:39PM

They may not yet admit that the BoM is not historical, but they DO have to admit that the Book of Mormon is a MUSICAL!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: misterzelph ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 12:46PM

Most Jews know that the OT are made up stories in order to convey a message. Yet they are still Jewish.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jkjkjkjk ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 11:19PM

It is not the same as the Jews and the OT. If the Jews knew it was just a book of stories to help guide, how would they feel if it was written as a fraud by a sex maniac to rip off the gullible. The BOM is an archeological forgery without the supporting physical media.

"Seriously, your still a Mormon?" is what the members of the LDS church can expect to as their future.

The church will decline and end up like a less insane version of the FDLS, small, insular feeling very persecuted. Actually that sounds like just like what they were when they started sans the polygamy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: HangarXVIII ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 01:04PM

As long as the apologists can muster an explanation -- no matter how ridiculous-- TSCC will never admit the BofM is not historical.

The only way TSCC will ever admit the BofM is not historical is if a smoking gun is discovered; such as the discovery of the real 'Manuscript Found' or similar damning evidence that cannot be disputed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schmowned ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 01:42PM

A smoking gun won't work, either. The evidence for the Book of Abraham is conclusive but they won't concede that it's a fraud.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jellohater ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 03:19PM

Try "book of lies" -- smoking, meet gun. Enough proof found.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hold Your Tapirs ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 03:21PM

I went through several of the mormonleaks.com presentations this weekend.

Wouldn't it be amazing if the real 'Manuscript Found' manuscript was found?

Please, oh please, let this happen.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rhgc ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 01:13PM

"I don't think we ever taught that". Future answer about BoM, Lamanites, etc.

Worst thing is that most TBMs will accept it as being true and forget the past.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Ex-CultMember ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 01:24PM

I have a difficult time seeing them admit this anytime in the near future. Whatever problems they have have now trying to pretend its historical would be far outweighed by the problems created by admitting the BoM as not historical. The credibility of the whole Mormon institution would be called into question if they gave in on this. Its a foundational issue not simply a doctrinal issue like gays or blacks and the priesthood. It would be almost as bad as saying Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet of God. Too many members blindly buy into the historicity of the BoM for them to worry about the few who don't.

The most I could see them doing is de-emphasizing the BoM like they do with the BoA, but never admitting anything. They'll just obscure the issue.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: iflewover ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 01:43PM

Plus 1.

They learned this technique in law school. Never admit, never come clean. Obscure, cover up, deny...the jury isn't that smart.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Chump ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 03:24PM

I don't think they can de-emphasize the BoM. It's the keystone of the religion. They've argued for decades that the remedy for all of life's ills is to read the BoM more. To even de-emphasize it would be to admit that the church isn't true. The church has no easy out. If they had never claimed to be God's one true church, and the only church with priesthood authority, maybe they could laugh some of this off and reform...they just don't have that option now.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: left4good ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 01:25PM

They will never come out and say "The Book of Mormon is not historical." But they will find a way to finesse the question (and the answer) to defuse the issue for most TBMs.

As archaeology continues to advance without a shred of ANY supporting BoM evidence, they will find a way to explain it with terms like "alegorical" and "revealed by the spirit."

That's exactly what they have done with the Book of Abraham. A "translation" is not really a translation, you see. And when Joseph Smith said it was written by Abraham in his own hand, the adjective "his" isn't modifying "Abraham," but refers to Joseph, and all that rot.

They will find a way to say Joseph Smith received the golden plates "by the spirit" and that the historical events were "projections for our time" or some such.

And the TBMs will bow their heads and say Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Greyfort ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 02:29PM

left4good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They will find a way to say Joseph Smith received
> the golden plates "by the spirit" and that the
> historical events were "projections for our time"
> or some such.

Then they'd have to admit that all of the witnesses only saw things with their spiritual eyes as well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 01:25PM

on a scale of 1 to 100 I would say a minus 40

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Claire ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 02:26PM

I think it was Ezra Taft Benson who said that Mormonism stands or falls on the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Of course, that was before the internet and DNA became household words.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: quebec ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 03:20PM

So they can say "He was speaking as a man"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: QWE ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 02:41PM

I think they will, but they'll do it gradually. Like they'll gradually put less emphasis on it being a historical record, and more emphasis on metaphors, analogies, etc. The transition will be so slow that it won't raise many eyebrows.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: presleynfactsrock ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 03:25PM

I don't think there is a chance in hell, heaven or even Kolob, for that matter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notinthislifetime ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 03:51PM

No chance at all. It seems all their talks and lessons involve the bom in some way. It wouldn't be such a bad religion if they'd leave out all the crazy mormon stuff but then they wouldn't have much to say. JC is way down the list after Joe and all the made up bom characters.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Bradley ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 04:36PM

Derp, zero.

They could say that yeah, it's made up, but no more made up than the bible. And so what? Most of modern culture is made up.

The TSCC could actually be a nice religion regardless of the authenticity of the BOM, if it didn't do so much to be not nice.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MarkJ ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 10:19PM

When will we run out of latter days?

It's been 200 years and they still think the appropriate unit of measurement is days?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Ex-CultMember ( )
Date: October 06, 2013 11:11PM

Why would they? Will they gain more converts and retain more members if they admit the BoM is not what it claims to be? To me it seems they would have FAR more people leave the church if they admit its a made up story than if they keep up the charade.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Mateo Pastor ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 03:13PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BG ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 06:20PM

"It's better than true" It was a spiritualy inspired story given to Joseph Smith to teach us and to establish the truth in this dispensation .... I don't think this is far off.

Remember this is how the Church handled Paul H. Dunn and Thomas Monson stories when they were proven to be totally made up. And Tommy is the prohet now.

Scientific evidence for the fraud is currenntly overwhelming, it's only going to get worse for the CHurch as time goes on. They will have to back away from B of M and B of A.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saviorself ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 07:03PM

The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of the Mormon Church. The BoM describes events that allegedly happened over two thousand years ago. Archaeology is a branch of science whose purpose is to study such ancient history. Encarta (online dictionary) defines it as "the scientific study of ancient cultures through the examination of their material remains such as buildings, graves, tools, and other artifacts usually dug up from the ground."

The world's foremost authority on archaeology is the Smithsonian Institution. A few years ago, some LDS believers circulated a false story claiming that the Smithsonian was using the Book of Mormon as a guide book. The Smithsonian decided to refute that misconception by publicly issuing the following statement:

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heartless ( )
Date: October 07, 2013 08:41PM

Hasn't the first step been taken when the introduction was changed from the Lamanites being the "principal" ancestors of the Indians to "among" the ancestors of the Indians?

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.