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

[_Chap]

Perhaps this topic is not to your liking. Over on another message board a question was asked: what was the final straw for your disbelief? There were plenty of answers with the majority being Book of Abraham issues, Polyandry, and Prop 8. But there were plenty other things which have caused disbelief and concern among the saints. If your serious about understanding what is and what isn't true, you must do more than just say you want to know the truth. You must be able to accept that you very well could be completely wrong about your beliefs. Because of pride, I don't think many actually ever find themselves in a position to accept that they very well could be completely wrong.

I don't know what more to say. I do think I could be completely wrong. If I am I just want someone to be able to show me how so.

Stemelbow appears to be a decent honest guy (well, he could be a Pahoran sock puppet designed to disarm us nasty critics, but probably not). Let's not hassle him.

[_Morley]

I don't know what more to say. I do think I could be completely wrong. If I am I just want someone to be able to show me how so.

No one can show you. It's your responsibility to find it for yourself. Just as no one can prove a heliocentric solar system, though the preponderance of evidence points to it.

[_stemelbow]

It still depends on the person. There is no "one thing" that would convince everyone that it isn't true. I personally agree with you about the Book of Abraham. Hypothetically, if someone was to find the actual gold plates that Joseph Smith used in his translation in some attic in an old house in upstate New York, and the church admitted that they were in fact the actual gold plates that Joseph Smith dug up because evidence on the plates linked them directly to Joseph Smith, but non-church experts unanimously declared the plates to be a forgery built in the 1820s, how devastating would that be? That is essentially what happened with the Book of Abraham. But the Book of Abraham issue was simply what got me started, and there is so much other evidence out there that is damning to Joseph Smith's claims.

Other people don't care about the Book of Abraham (which blows my mind), and its things like Polygamy that do it for them. It depends on the person, and there is plenty of stuff out there to destroy a testimony. Just read the testimonies of people who left and people leave for a variety of reasons.

I don't see why this is being turned into what can destroy a testimony. Its about whether we can know if the church is not true. The question in the OP is asking whether a believer, like me, would want to know if it weren't true. Sure I would. But just vaguely alluding to the problems you subjectively see doesn't help much in this case. It comes as skepticism and not much more.

[_stemelbow]

No one can show you. It's your responsibility to find it for yourself. Just as no one can prove a heliocentric solar system, though the preponderance of evidence points to it.

I'd be completely fine with that. The OP is asking me, for instance, if I'd like to know that the Church was not true. I say yes. But how can someone show me that? No one seems to be able to address that, really. How can one be shown the Church is not true?

[_Buffalo]

I don't see why this is being turned into what can destroy a testimony. Its about whether we can know if the church is not true. The question in the OP is asking whether a believer, like me, would want to know if it weren't true. Sure I would. But just vaguely alluding to the problems you subjectively see doesn't help much in this case. It comes as skepticism and not much more.

It's hard to know where to start with that subject.

But how about the fact that the Brass Plates that Nephi got from Laban contained passages of Isaiah (Deutero Isaiah) that hadn't even been written yet. For someone on the outside looking in, that alone tells you that the Book of Mormon is not historical. Of course, I suppose you could take the stance that it can be fictional but the church still "true" in a certain sense.

[_Themis]

Oh boy. Sorry Themis, this just isn't very helpful at all. If you can prove something then prove it. If all you can do is say its proven to you and others don't see it because they are too biased, then that just doesn't help at all.

Considering all the evidence from so many sources even a new thread is not enough. My point is only that there is far more then is needed to prove the church is not true. You can pick any subject you like in a new thread. I am sure many are willing to help you out.

See what? All you did was allude to something that critics, quite often, feel they have in their corner. Even if there is no inspiration in the Book of Abraham the question of whether the Church is true is still up in the air. To prove it wrong would take far more than that.

Not really. The Book of Abraham proves that Joseph made it up, so it is likely he did the same for the Book of Mormon, etc. We can also see the evidence showing this as well. Again to much information for this thread, or any thread. It takes a lot of study.

[_stemelbow]

It's hard to know where to start with that subject.

But how about the fact that the Brass Plates that Nephi got from Laban contained passages of Isaiah (Deutero Isaiah) that hadn't even been written yet. For someone on the outside looking in, that alone tells you that the Book of Mormon is not historical. Of course, I suppose you could take the stance that it can be fictional but the church still "true" in a certain sense.

Heya Buffalo,

I see it thusly: If Isaiah is inspired writ, if inspired writ is not wholly inspired by God, as in it does have elements of men in it, and if deutero Isaiah largely represents what Isaiah originally thought, then I see no problem with the idea that the Joseph Smith translated Book of Mormon contains words that were actually written after Lehi and co's exodus. Sure you'd have to be pretty liberal in your views of scripture to take this stance. But, in contrast you'd equally have to be pretty conservative to think "translation" inspired by God must be a very literal one (translation). Perhaps God felt it appropriate to go with the largely KJV accounts of Isaiah for very particular reasons, not the least of which was to avoid the then current idea of what Isaiah said.

In effect, your point doesn't disprove the Church, but brings into question some of the preconceived ideas regarding translation and the nature of the Book of Mormon text as originally written.

[_jskains]

You asked me in chat, PP, and I gave you a very direct and straight answer.

JMS

[_Buffalo]

Heya Buffalo,

I see it thusly: If Isaiah is inspired writ, if inspired writ is not wholly inspired by God, as in it does have elements of men in it, and if deutero Isaiah largely represents what Isaiah originally thought, then I see no problem with the idea that the Joseph Smith translated Book of Mormon contains words that were actually written after Lehi and co's exodus. Sure you'd have to be pretty liberal in your views of scripture to take this stance. But, in contrast you'd equally have to be pretty conservative to think "translation" inspired by God must be a very literal one (translation). Perhaps God felt it appropriate to go with the largely KJV accounts of Isaiah for very particular reasons, not the least of which was to avoid the then current idea of what Isaiah said.

In effect, your point doesn't disprove the Church, but brings into question some of the preconceived ideas regarding translation and the nature of the Book of Mormon text as originally written.

What do you think this argument would sound like to an outsider?

It certainly disproves the historicity of The Book of Mormon. You can't claim it's a historical document in light of Deutero-Isaiah (which, by the way, wasn't written by Isaiah, but by someone writing under his name).

Think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying God told Joseph to fictionalize parts of the record for whatever reason - to have Nephi introduce a record which he could not have possessed.

[_stemelbow]

What do you think this argument would sound like to an outsider?

I don't know.

It certainly disproves the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

I really don't see how.

You can't claim it's a historical document in light of Deutero-Isaiah (which, by the way, wasn't written by Isaiah, but by someone writing under his name).

Even Deutero Isaiah is historical. We don't know if deutero Isaiah was based off something previous or not. Alls this really does is bring up questions, much of which aren't addressed.

Think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying God told Joseph to fictionalize parts of the record for whatever reason - to have Nephi introduce a record which he could not have possessed.

That's not what I"m saying at all. I'm essentially saying God doesn't care if truth comes to us through an ass or not. He just wants it to get to us. Its not important to HIm, it doesn't seem, if the quotations found in the Book of Mormon from the KJV were actually Isaiah's words. It seems He's more concerned that we get the idea that Nephi and co. reflected upon Isaiah's words, hoping to set the main point that Isaiah spoke prophecy and they listened.