And, what, if anything would lead you to the conclusion that Mormonism’s foundational stories, personalities and writings are not what they claim to be?

Yes, there is. What leads me to believe they are true is God telling me so, and so the way I figure it, the only thing that could convince me otherwise would be for God to tell me that what he has already told me is not true. But that’s a bit like the age-old question “Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?”

As far as any other sort of evidence such as writings or lack thereof, scientific “evidence”, etc., no, I don’t really see how anything else could convince me, because it wasn’t by those things that I was convinced of the truthfulness of the LDS Church in the first place. Not that things couldn’t come up that might give me pause–I’m sure there are other things I’ll learn about Mormonism that will make me think “Really?! What the heck…?” but in the past when I’ve come across such things my thought process is “Hmm, I wonder what the explanation is for all of this?” as opposed to “I don’t see how the LDS Church can be true anymore.”

You and I were both born into the church to LDS families. If Mormonism is the one true church, wow…..we really hit the jackpot. Extremely lucky, right? Out of the billions and billions of humans that have come and gone over the last 50,000 years, and the tens of thousands of organized religions, not to mention the other tribal/pagan/animist beliefs, we were so unimaginably fortunate to have been born into the Creator of the Universe’s own special organization on earth.

We could have been born into any other circumstance where we were taught to believe in the existence of various deities. We could have grown up in Northern Europe a thousand years ago believing in Odin or many thousands of years ago in Egypt believing in Min. After being taught those beliefs by our parents and surrounding culture, wouldn’t we have been believers? I think so.

So, what is more likely? That you and I were unimaginably lucky, or that everyone else feels the same way about the faith of their family/culture?

I’ve thought about this quite a bit, and I don’t think I have any definitive answers I can point to, but I do have a few personal opinions. But to answer the question that I made the title of the post, I don’t know. That is, if I had been born a Muslim, would I be as faithful to the Muslim faith as I am to the Mormon faith? What if I had been born a Catholic? I really don’t know how to answer that question for myself, but if we were to look at broader statistical data, I’d be willing to bet that many, if not most, people remain faithful to the religion into which they were born. However, there are obviously a lot of people who change from the religion into which they were born, and most people who are Mormon today weren’t born into Mormon families, so who knows.

Now, to say the chances of someone being born into a Mormon family are small is true, if you believe you’re born wherever you are strictly by chance. But even if we follow that line of thinking, the fact remains that somebody has to be born into Mormon families. The chance of it being you or me, specifically, may be small, but the chance of it being someone is pretty close to 100%.

But I don’t believe we’re born into our families by chance. I think it’s all well-planned out and we’re born exactly when and where God wants us to be born.

Onto that last question, of course I can’t say whether everyone feels the same way about their faith as I do, because I’ve spoken to precious few people of other faiths on such a level as to be able to make any such judgment, but based on that small sampling I’m inclined to extrapolate, perhaps in error, and say that no, they don’t think the same way I do about their religion. However, I’d extend that to many other Mormons, not just members of other faiths. Hopefully that doesn’t come across and terribly arrogant and superior, because I don’t mean it that way, I just think it’s a fact that some people think, question, and reason more than other people do, and if I think more deeply about things than somebody else then there’s someone else that thinks more deeply about things than I do. I believe that most people, of all religions, don’t think very deeply about life, the universe, and everything. I think most people are occupied with day to day tasks like working, eating, and sleeping, and “being a good person” and relatively few of us wax philosophical.

But that doesn’t really answer the question, I suppose. I suppose the question is whether or not I think there could be someone who feels about their religion just as I do about mine. My answer to that is “no”, but with some caveats. Perhaps I can best express my thoughts by responding to one of your follow up questions:

By what criteria do you discount the truth claims of the other 10,000 organized religions in the world?

I don’t discount other religions, per se. I think every religion has some measure of truth, some more, and some less, and I don’t believe that membership in any particular religion during this life guarantees or disqualifies one for all the blessings of exaltation. I’m inclined to believe that Islam is a true religion that was founded by God. According to Islam, their religion was given to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel, and I don’t see any reason why that couldn’t be true. Whether what is practiced today in Islam is exactly what Gabriel taught Mohammad is another question, but I have no reason to question the roots of the religion as coming from God. Likewise I believe most other religions sprang up as the result of communication with God or his messengers or through what you could call “inspiration”. These religions have blessed the lives of billions of people. I think it’s quite interesting to think about how things would be different for the people of the Middle East and surrounding areas if Islam had never been founded. There are many, due to Islamic terrorism, who think we’d all be better off if Islam had never existed, but I think that’s rather short-sighted because we don’t know what would have existed in its place. I think there’s a good chance the world would be much, much worse off today if Islam had never existed, and I think it would certainly be worse for the people of the Middle East. I think Islam was established by God to serve his own purposes, which in the short-term are quite different than the purposes for which he established the Mormon faith, although in the long-term they are the same, which is to bring his children closer to him in terms of their thoughts and deeds.

But if another religion says “We’re the only true religion and all others are false and impostors” well, yes, I disagree with that. I think there are many “true” religions in that they teach primarily true principles and serve the function of bringing people closer to God, but what sets the LDS Church apart is that it’s the only church with the Priesthood, or God’s authority to act in his name. No other baptism is valid, no other sacrament is valid, and there is no other church I know of that even claims to be able to perform marriages that last beyond this life.

I think the natural follow-up question to this is “If the LDS Church is the only true church, why didn’t God make it to be the church with a billion members instead of Islam?” At least part of the answer is that it doesn’t matter, in the long-term scheme of things. God’s purpose is to help his children become like him. His children don’t all have to be members of his church in this life for that to happen. But it is important that his church exist during the history of this world in order for that to happen. It does exist and will continue to exist, and so everything will work out for everyone, regardless of what religion they belong to, as long as they are developing those characteristics that make them more like God.

One more opinion of mine–I am of the opinion that somebody else can receive revelation from God that they are supposed to join another religion. That is, I think someone could pray and feel that they are supposed to join the Baptist church, or the Lutherans, or Islam, or Buddhism, etc. I don’t believe this would happen if they were comparing those religions to Mormonism and trying to decide between the two, but I think someone, in isolation from Mormonism, could receive revelation telling them to join another religion. I think this could happen because I think God will “take whatever he can get”, and if someone is going to come closer to him by joining a religion as opposed to not joining it, then he would want them to join it. “Damned” is just another word for “stopped”, and we’re only stopped in our progress, or damned, when we reject truth. As long as joining another religion is an improvement upon the prior condition of the individual, why would it be a bad thing?

The more I converse with people who have left the LDS Church, the more I hear stories that go this way “I was completely active in the Church and thought it was true, but then I learned such and such, and that was too much for me. I can’t believe a prophet of God would do such and such.”

What constitutes “too much to take” most often seems to be related to the policy of polygamy in the LDS Church (100 years ago) and Joseph Smith’s multiple marriages (some to women who were already married). Other less common items include racist comments by Brigham Young and other controversial statements by Church leaders.

For my part, I’m pretty sure I know every available and credible fact about Joseph Smith’s marriage (and plenty of less credible facts as well) and while Smith’s actions give me fuel for plenty of questions, and I can see why his actions would bother people, I still don’t have a problem believing he was a prophet. I think the primary difference  of perspective between those who believe Smith was a prophet (and continued to be until his death) and those who don’t believe, is whether or not they believe Smith’s actions were in accordance with instructions he received from God or not. If they were, then of course there’s nothing wrong with any of it (logically). If he was totally off and acting on his own, then he was deranged and/or a sexual addict on such a level as to make David Letterman blush.

But is there any precedent for such behavior? Certainly there is for polygamy, as there were multiple prophets of the Old Testament who had multiple wives, apparently with God’s sanction. As for taking the wives of other men, there is no recorded precedent I know of, other than David and Bathsheba, which of course was not sanctioned by God. But what about other, perhaps more controversial behavior?

For example, let’s imagine Joseph Smith had gone to the Mormons in Nauvoo and said “God has commanded me to put together an army, go up to Chicago, and destroy the city, including killing all women, children, and animals.” and then they went and did it. Would that be too much for you to take? And yet that appears to be precisely what happened in the Old Testament on more than one occasion, except that the cities that were destroyed weren’t Chicago.

In regards to this topic I enjoy the story of Dan Jones, one of the early converts to the LDS Church, as recorded in “Regional Studies”, Illinois, Boone—My Friends, p.84ff:

Dan Jones was a small, sea-loving Welshman who first became acquainted with the Prophet when the Saints were in Nauvoo. He and the Prophet Joseph became co-owners of the Mississippi steamboat, Maid of Iowa. Dan Jones’ total commitment and complete loyalty endeared him to the Church leaders generally, and to the Prophet specifically. On one occasion the Prophet determined to test the Welshman’s loyalty in an unusual, if not harsh, manner. He went to the wharf where Dan was working on their boat and convincingly portrayed himself in the part of a drunkard. The Prophet never referred to the incident in his own writings, but Dan Jones related the encounter in great detail. Only brief glimpses of the incident are recorded here.

Upon his arrival at the docks the Prophet found Captain Dan Jones busy at work on the deck of their boat. With appropriate staggering, slurs, repetition of phrases, hiccuping and other signs of obvious inebriation, the Prophet attempted to board the Maid of Iowa.

“Boat ahoy, Hallo Come and help me aboard Captain, for I’m afraid to fall off that plank into the river. Now hold fast, steady there all safe. Now Captain [Jones] you see I’m a leedl boozy tonight, been drinking a leedl wine with a friend; but what of that I’m a Prophet if I am drunk; that I am. Well look here Captain, you hold my note, don’t you? Well I have just called to tell you that I don’t mean to pay you a cent of it, that I wont. Now ain’t I an honest man to tell you so? I tell you I never mean to pay you a cent, there now help yourself.”

“You may think I am not a Prophet but I am a Prophet if I am drunk. There I told you what I came for, I wont pay a cent that’s all. Now help me ashore again, I know I’m a Prophet, don’t push me off the plank, or I’ll be a fallen Prophet, if not a drowned Prophet, Ha, Ha, there ashore safe let me go sue, sue away, I tell you I don’t care, good night.”

The Prophet staggered up the bank and away from the wharf toward his home until he met Dr. Willard Richards. After a warm greeting between the Prophet and his personal secretary and friend, the Prophet, very much sober, said,

“Excuse me, Dr. Richards I have played such a joke just now, I am afraid I’ll split my sides laughing; I must tell it you. I have acted the drunken man so natural aboard that Boat that I have made the Captain believe I was really drunk, ha, ha, for he looked as sober as a Judge. Suppose you call on him by and bye, and quiz out of him what he thinks of it; he is an honest man I believe, and if I cant shake him off me, I will make a man of him, let me hear again.”

“Shall I leave him ignorant of the joke?” asked Brother Richards.

The Prophet responded, “If he stumbles at it [the test] you may, but if not you may let him have the benefit of it too.”

Following the instructions of the Prophet, Elder Richards played the part of a sympathetic friend concerned for the welfare of his inebriated associate:

“Good night Captain,” “Good night Doctor, step aboard.” [Richards] [e]nters, puts on a grave face, and draws a long sigh, “Have you seen the Prophet about this evening?”

“He was here about an hour ago.”

“I hear that he has been drinking again! What a pity that such a good man gives way to drink so—great pity. Wonder they let him go about the streets to expose himself; was he very drunk Captain?”

“He had his three sheets in the wind or thereabouts.”

“Well what do you think of it?”

“All I think of it is that if he drinks until doom’s day, he can’t drown that truth which is in him, nor the little that is in me neither. Tis true that I would rather have a sober Prophet, but then if we can’t get a sober one, a drunken Prophet is better than no Prophet at all, so I will hold on to the one we have got, drunken or sober. That’s what I think to do Doctor.”

“Ha, Ha you will not be driven to that Cap[tain]; tis all a joke; the Prophet is as sober as a judge only weighing you.”

“So much the better if any difference, although, every body mind his own business is my motto.”

—————-

Back to my commentary…

Dan Jones didn’t care if Joseph Smith was a drunk. That is, he cared, but it didn’t influence whether he thought Joseph was a prophet or not. Dan Jones had a spiritual confirmation that Joseph was a prophet, and that’s all he needed to know.

That’s kind of how it is for me–I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, so when I learn about his wives and such, the question for me is “Why would God command such a thing?” But I don’t ask it as though God couldn’t have commanded such a thing, I ask it as a matter of idle curiosity. I don’t have a problem accepting that it’s possible, at least in part because I’ve already read much stranger things in the Old Testament. The only difference is that when it’s 3,000 years old then it doesn’t seem as “real” as something that happened much closer to our own time.

So again, how much can Mormons take? If you’d like to share what it was that was too much for you to take and why, or a story about someone you know and what was too much for them, then please do.

Biblical inerrancy is, of course, not agreed upon in the mainstream Christian world either. But for those of you who do believe in biblical inerrancy, how do you explain the many versions of the Bible that are available? If one version is perfect, what reason is there to be more than one version? And if two versions use different words for the same passages, can they both be 100% correct?

Can you give any logical reason why God wouldn’t have prophets and apostles on earth today vs. thousands of years ago? Does the Bible itself say there would be an end to prophets and apostles? If it does state or insinuate such a thing, doe it state that prophets and apostles would never return?

Parley P. Pratt, one of the first apostles in this dispensation, asked this question quite well, albeit rather verbosely. This is an excerpt from the outline from a presentation he gave in the 1830′s to a group of Christian “truth-seekers” in Toronto, Canada.

“Friends, I am aware that the subject now under consideration is one of the most vital importance to the Christian world, and, though it may seem to be new to most persons, it is familiar to me. I have traced it in all its bearings, weighed it in every possible light, and am prepared to impart to others that which, I trust, will satisfy and enlighten the inquiring mind.

“It appears from our text, as well as from the general tenor of the New Testament, that certain definite principles existed, which, acted upon and enjoyed, constituted the Christian Church, or body of Christ, viz:

“First. An inspired priesthood or apostleship, authorized to administer salvation in the name of Jesus.

“Second. Faith in their words and testimony, on the part of those who heard them.

“Third. Reformation of life.

“Fourth. Obedience to certain ordinances, as baptism and the laying on of hands in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

“Fifth. The spiritual gifts imparted to the body thus organized, in order to its edification, growth and perfection.

“It may be presumed that every portion of the professed Christian Church, without any exception—I mean those who admit the Scriptures to be a record of things as they existed—will readily agree, that the five principles just named did exist, and did constitute the Christian Church or body of Christ. This, then constitutes the model or pattern of the object of our present search.

“We have only to compare modern presences with this ancient model, in order to judge of them at once. Either the same principles would be required to constitute the body of Christ in all succeeding ages, or else the New Testament must cease to be a standard, and be superseded by a dispensation of later origin; claiming power to nullify or make void the dispensation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and to introduce another order of things in its stead.

“This last alternative none are so bold as to claim. All agree that the gospel was a perfect system, an unchangeable and everlasting covenant, never to be changed or altered by the Lord, and only perverted or altered by man under a severe penalty—a dreadful anathema. In physical matters men are not easily deceived or duped; for instance, a man sees or hears an exact description of a human body as existing in the days of Socrates or Plato; it has head, eyes, ears, mouth, arms, hands, legs, feet, etc. Can an impostor impose upon that man in this age? Can he introduce a wild beast, a fowl, a serpent, a man dismembered of his head, eyes, ears, hands, or feet? Could he pass any of these upon his fellow men as constituting the human body; the model or pattern answering to the former description? No, he could not. He would be considered out of his senses, and would be laughed to scorn for attempting such a thing.

“Why, then, are we at a loss in judging of the various systems which, in modern times, claim to be the church of Christ? Why do we not compare them with the model, and reject or receive at once? Perhaps you will say that such a course leads to consequences and conclusions so awful, that it opens truths so unwelcome, that it is natural to shrink from the view; and, like the ostrich in the desert, when pursued too closely, hides the head and eyes in a false covering, while the body is exposed to certain destruction.

“Says one, ‘if the ancient model or pattern is the standard, then the veil of modern Christendom is thrown off, and the entire world unchristianized—for we nowhere find such a pattern.’ Well, admit then that there is no Christian church in existence among men, and that there has not been for many ages. What then? is it a truth? If so, truth will not harm anybody. If the whole world has been for ages wrapped in mystery and deception, is it not better to find it out now than to continue in ignorance until Jesus reveals it at the judgment day, and sinks us in a moment from the highest pinnacle of hope and expectation to despair, rendered a thousand-fold more painful by a sudden reverse?

“But suppose, on opening our eyes to this great discovery, we search and find our observations and conclusions warranted by the whole tenor of prophetic writ? Suppose Jesus Christ and his Apostles and prophets all agree in bearing testimony, and foretelling the very order of things which we find to exist; also, its final end or termination, and the restoration of his Church and the reign of his Saints? Would not our own observations of what actually exists, confirmed by the prophetic declarations of such a host of witnesses, all testifying that it would be so, be a double assurance that we had opened our eyes to a snare in time to escape, and cause, us to leap forward with a thrill of joy and faith to that which is to come?

“We could then exclaim, in viewing the trumpery, pomp, splendor and greatness of Catholicism, or the scarcely less false and glaring systems of absurdity and priestcraft under the name of Protestantism, in their various forms, O, thou mystery of iniquity! thou art at last revealed, thou who deceivest all nations with thy sorcery, and with whom the kings of the earth and the nobles and great men have committed fornication, and lived deliciously; thy covering is removed, and the people shall see thy nakedness and abhor thee; and many shall be ready when the proclamation is made, ‘Come out of her, my people.’

“But suppose, on the other hand, we shut our eyes to these truths, and hug to our bosoms those systems of falsehood and error, which claim to be of Christ, but are not? The result will be a continuance on our part to build up that which the Lord purposes in due time to tear down, and to oppose that which the Lord will send into the world to accomplish his purposes. We would in this case be his enemies, and be found fighting against him.

Here is Hebrews 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once ^aenlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have ^atasted the good word of God, and the powers of the ^bworld to come,

The thing about evolution is that it generally happens over millions of years, right? So theoretically, human beings, or the species that led to them, over millions of years would have gotten a little more intelligent here, a little more sophisticated there, and so it seems there would be an archaeological record showing a gradual increase in human capabilities over many, many years.

Instead, we have humans going from a life barely superior to that of animals to inventing spacecraft and computers all within a period of less than 10,000 years. How would you account for this radical advancement in terms of the evolutionary process? And why wouldn’t this have happened previously? Why now? Why weren’t airplanes invented 3,000, 2,500, 2,000, 1,500, 1,000, 500, or 250 years ago? Heck, why wasn’t the cotton gin, a relatively simple invention, invented 500 years ago? How does evolution account for those individuals who compose symphonies where 100+ musical instruments must work in harmony to produce the desired results? Is that ability tied to the ability to throw a spear better?

On a somewhat related note, what happens to us all now since we can create inventions to overcome the disadvantages of individuals of the human species? If a fat, lazy guy with a low iq can reproduce just as well as the smart guy with the great physique, does that mean our species is on a downward path and someday we’ll all be a mess, having devolved, in essence?

But hey, give it your best shot. If you don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who translated the Book of Mormon from ancient plates with God’s help, where do you think the book came from?

I’m trying to wrap my head around this statement and I just don’t get it. I don’t see any logic here. I mean, of course God’s word is true, but how can a person figure out which words are God’s and which aren’t? I could sit down and write a book tomorrow, claim it was God’s word, and when somebody said “How do I know this is God’s word?” I could just say “It doesn’t need verification, it is God’s word and therefore simply is true.”

“But we’re talking about the Bible, not just any book!” you might way. Well, what’s the Bible to somebody in the outback of China? Maybe they’ve never heard of the Bible. To them it’s just a bunch of paper with words on it between two covers. How are they supposed to know that it’s any different than any other book?

“Because they can read it and see that it’s different!” Sure, they can see that the language is different. They can see that it says things that are different than other books. But are they just supposed to believe it’s true because somebody says it is? How can somebody know whether anything is true without some sort of verification process?