If the church is not true, would you want to know?

[_Buffalo]

Not at all.... Life is all about "judgment".

Well, Mormon life is all about judgment. I'll give you that.

[_stemelbow]

Duetero Isaiah consists of Isaiah 40-55. It doesn't summarize the genuine words of Isaiah. It is written as if it were from Isaiah, but it's a forgery. In our Old Testament it just reads as a continuation.

But its all disputed. Here...let's take it this way. Let's assume, Duetero-Isaiah was copied, in part from writings of Isaiah or writings attributed to Isaiah with some additions/corrections/editing. It very well could be that Duetero Isaiah and the Isaiah had on the brass plates and quoted by Lehi and co were very similar, so much so that God Himself feels it appropriate, in these hundreds of years later, to go ahead and permit the KJV version be, essentially, copied to fill in the Isaiah quotations becuase doing so is 1. easier in the tranlsation process, and 2. gets the message across to the extent that God intends. You simply woudln't know if this is not the case.

Now just because it was forged does not mean it is false, but it does mean that, given when it was written, it could not have been on the brass plates. Yet Nephi quotes from them as if they were - four entire chapters above.

Your mind seems more pharisaic to me on this. I don't think there is any reason to assume as you have assumed, regarding how Nephi would have quoted it, or how God would have translated it. We don't' know.

Yes, it's difficult to follow the evidence as a believer when the evidence leads away from the conclusion you think the Spirit has given you. So instead you try to make the evidence fit your conclusion instead of following the evidence wherever it leads. I know that very well - I did the same thing for years.

Indeed. But its also hard to follow the evidence as a person wanting to disprove a faith claim, particularly when that evidence doesn't say all that the critic wishes it to say. We're in the same boat, it seems.

[_Buffalo]

But its all disputed. Here...let's take it this way. Let's assume, Duetero-Isaiah was copied, in part from writings of Isaiah or writings attributed to Isaiah with some additions/corrections/editing. It very well could be that Duetero Isaiah and the Isaiah had on the brass plates and quoted by Lehi and co were very similar, so much so that God Himself feels it appropriate, in these hundreds of years later, to go ahead and permit the KJV version be, essentially, copied to fill in the Isaiah quotations becuase doing so is 1. easier in the tranlsation process, and 2. gets the message across to the extent that God intends. You simply woudln't know if this is not the case.

Your mind seems more pharisaic to me on this. I don't think there is any reason to assume as you have assumed, regarding how Nephi would have quoted it, or how God would have translated it. We don't' know.

Indeed. But its also hard to follow the evidence as a person wanting to disprove a faith claim, particularly when that evidence doesn't say all that the critic wishes it to say. We're in the same boat, it seems.

If someone presented you a video that purported to be recorded in 1942, but featured the Beatles performing "I Am The Walrus," what would you conclude? That the video was not from 1942 as claimed, or that somehow, against all evidence to the contrary, the Beatles were around in 1942 and had already written "I Am The Walrus"?

Deutero-Isaiah was written by an unknown author during the Babylonian captivity - which was obviously after Lehi left Jerusalem (Isaiah was an 8th century BC prophet). Deutero-Isaiah addresses topics relevant to his own day - relevant to the captivity. Isaiah couldn't have written it. The unknown author names a contemporary man, Cyrus the great, as the "messiah" who will overthrow Babylon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Is ... h_40-55.29

Content and structure
See also: Isaiah 53

Deutero-Isaiah prophesies the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Babylonians and their restoration in the land promised to them by God. It affirms that the Jews are indeed the chosen people of God and Yahweh is both their national god and the God of the universe (46:9). Cyrus is named as the messiah who will overthrow Babylon and allow the return of Israel (chapter 45:1). The remaining chapters are a vision of the future glory of Zion. A "suffering servant" is referred to (esp. ch. 53) - probably a metaphor for Israel, Christians have traditionally interpreted it as a prophecy of Jesus as the Christ (i.e., Messiah).[19]

Chapters 40-55 fall into two parts, with 40-48 dealing with the rise of Cyrus, while 49-55 are focused on Zion as the wife whom God has renounced and then taken back. The Cyrus chapters are similar in style and theme to the Cyrus cylinder, and it is possible that Deutero-Isaiah was influenced by the propaganda of Cyrus and his supporters, who claimed that the god Marduk had chosen Cyrus to liberate Babylon.[18]:p.524

Isaiah 45:1

“This is what the LORD says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:
2 I will go before you
and will level the mountains[a];
I will break down gates of bronze
and cut through bars of iron.

Stem, as you can see, this is addressed specifically to Cyrus, a person living in the author's day. Cyrus was born centuries after the real Isaiah.

What you're really doing is creating for yourself the appearance that everything is "disputed" when it really isn't. But that's what maintaining faith is all about, isn't it? It's trying to create enough plausible deniability to sustain belief. But in this case, you really don't have any wiggle room. You have to invent scenarios out of whole cloth to do it, sans any evidence to support it.

If you were just going from what the evidence told you, there would be no need for such desperate measures - you'd simply draw your conclusions from the evidence available.

[_Themis]

If you were just going from what the evidence told you, there would be no need for such desperate measures - you'd simply draw your conclusions from the evidence available.

I think this is the difference between those who want to know the truth and those who do not. When you do not really want to know the truth you will always go for the less likely possibilities based on the evidence. We see this as a staple in apologetics whether with LDS or other groups. Things like the missing papyri are just that. Made up in order to protect what one wants to believe. Like I said before, almost everyone believes they would want to know the truth even if it is against what they believe.

[_Buffalo]

If you were just going from what the evidence told you, there would be no need for such desperate measures - you'd simply draw your conclusions from the evidence available.

I think this is the difference between those who want to know the truth and those who do not. When you do not really want to know the truth you will always go for the less likely possibilities based on the evidence. We see this as a staple in apologetics whether with LDS or other groups. Things like the missing papyri are just that. Made up in order to protect what one wants to believe. Like I said before, almost everyone believes they would want to know the truth even if it is against what they believe.

Yes, absolutely. Someone sincerely searching for the truth MUST favor that which is most plausible over that which is less plausible or over that for which there is little or no evidence at all. These implausible alternative explanations only come from a desire to still be able to come to the emotionally-satisfying conclusion that you're looking for.

Often they are not based on any evidence, but rather holes in certainty which always exist. Nothing is ever 100% certain, so if you want to squeeze some implausible explanation into the gaps of knowledge, you can, as long as you can handle the resultant cognitive dissonance.

[_DarkHelmet]

Why do you believe the Church is true? I would like to "save your soul" by converting you to agnosticism.

Basically I believe the Church is true because I honestly trust that God has gave me reason to believe it is true in the form of Him manifesting the truth of it to me. I simply can't deny the experiences I've had that go far beyond anything anyone has been able to critique as far as I've seen.

Let me guess, you also know this church is true and know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of god and Thomas S. Monson is a prophet today, you love your mom and dad and your brother's and sisters, and you say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen :)

[_mentalgymnast]

"If the church is not true, would you want to know?"

Another one of those threads with two sides unable to agree on what the truth is. Isn't this a fruitless endeavor? Seems so. I read through the whole thread and no one has "seen the light" of the person on the other side.

I suppose one could reverse the question and ask, "If the church is true, would you want to know?"

The answer to this question from the critics and unbelievers has and is going to be "yes"...but..."I was smart enough and wise enough to figure out that it wasn't."

So, don't repeat yourselves again and again. The believers already know how smart you think you are and we aren't.

We heard you the first time. And the second time. And now.

Oh, and yes, for the record, I would want to know if the church wasn't true.

OTOH, I want to know if it is.

And as someone else pointed out earlier, it is a duty incumbent upon each of us as individuals to thoroughly grasp whether or not we've paid the price to come to correct conclusions.

I have a certain degree of antipathy towards those that accuse believers of having not paid the price to find "the truth" (and of course the accuser has obviously done so...), but unfortunately that's one of the first things that a critic will throw at someone who has come down on the side of hopeful belief and/or faith.

It's a dead end.

Regards,
MG

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Basically I believe the Church is true because I honestly trust that God has gave me reason to believe it is true in the form of Him manifesting the truth of it to me. I simply can't deny the experiences I've had that go far beyond anything anyone has been able to critique as far as I've seen.

I would guess many people who contribute to these discussions have had and others who now have very similar beliefs as you.

[_Themis]

Oh, and yes, for the record, I would want to know if the church wasn't true.

OTOH, I want to know if it is.

AS I have said before, almost everyone believes they would want to know the truth. In reality many really do not.

[_Themis]

Basically I believe the Church is true because I honestly trust that God has gave me reason to believe it is true in the form of Him manifesting the truth of it to me. I simply can't deny the experiences I've had that go far beyond anything anyone has been able to critique as far as I've seen.

No one is asking you to deny your experiences. I think this seems to be one of the most common misunderstandings. I wonder if it is because many members cannot separate between the experience and the inteprretation they attach to it.