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

[_Themis]

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.

We can know, but again we have to control our bias. Most of us think we do want the truth, but this does not stop our bias from preventing this. Maybe in reality we don't really want it that bad.

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

You can be shown and probably have just like those who believe in a young earth or Global flood. One cannot see the evidence for what it really says unless they first recognise their bias and controll it.

[_stemelbow]

We can know, but again we have to control our bias. Most of us think we do want the truth, but this does not stop our bias from preventing this. Maybe in reality we don't really want it that bad.

You can be shown and probably have just like those who believe in a young earth or Global flood. One cannot see the evidence for what it really says unless they first recognise their bias and controll it.

But you come off as not knowing what you're saying regarding my position. Its far more than bias that I hold to. I don't doubt at all that bias is part of it, though. In that, when someone tells me I'm wrong but is unable to see what i see, I am left with nothing in terms of demonstrating I'm wrong.

[_Buffalo]

I don't know.

An outsider would see it for what it is - a sincere believer's attempt to reconcile his faith with facts that are contradictory to it - someone more interested in a pre-determined conclusion than in the evidence.

To put it more succinctly, they would see you as being in denial.

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.

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.

The Book of Mormon is also historical, in that it dates to the 19th century.

I'm not sure what benefit there is to falsifying the Book of Mormon's historicity (historicity and anachronism are incompatible) just to include Deutero-Isaiah - especially since we already have Deutero-Isaiah right in the Bible. Nothing helpful is accomplished, and the credibility of the Book of Mormon narrative is destroyed.

When Jesus, in the Book of Mormon, wanted to include the words of Malachi (written long after 600 BC), Jesus quoted him directly. No claim was made that Malachi's writings were on the brass plates, because Joseph knew that Malachi wrote much later. But Deutero-Isaiah is claimed by the book itself to have been contained in the brass plates, which is obviously impossible.

The reason why Joseph was smart about how he included Malachi but foolish about the way he included Deutero-Isaiah is because he didn't know that some passages from Isaiah were written long after the death of Isaiah, and attributed to him after the fact. We learned that later. Oops.

This is only one of many, many similar problems.

[_Themis]

But you come off as not knowing what you're saying regarding my position. Its far more than bias that I hold to. I don't doubt at all that bias is part of it, though. In that, when someone tells me I'm wrong but is unable to see what i see, I am left with nothing in terms of demonstrating I'm wrong.

Some of us might just see what you see becuase we have been there. One of the biggest road blocks and the source of most of the bias against the evidence is the spiritual, or how most LDS define it. How do you show one that the earth is indeed billions of years old and that a Global flood did not happen?

[_Some Schmo]

It is painfully obvious that Mormons do not, in any way, want to know if the church isn't "true." If they did, then they'd know. Since they don't want to know, they don't.

Now, that doesn't mean they want to admit to themselves they don't want to know (which is why we get the desperate ranting from the TBM's in this thread about it) If they can convince themselves they'd really like to know even though they aren't actually trying to find out, it helps support the illusion of religious authenticity. It's just another form of testimony BS.

I mean, come on... obviously, they don't want to know. For something as unbelievable as the LDS church, it takes almost nothing to realize how full of crap it is, so if members really wanted to know, they would know. Simply telling themselves they'd want to know is just another in a parade of lies one must tell himself in order to keep believing.

One thing about maintaining a testimony: it sure trains you well in the art of high-functioning self-deception.

[_stemelbow]

The Book of Mormon is also historical, in that it dates to the 19th century.

I'm not sure what benefit there is to falsifying the Book of Mormon's historicity (historicity and anachronism are incompatible) just to include Deutero-Isaiah - especially since we already have Deutero-Isaiah right in the Bible. Nothing helpful is accomplished, and the credibility of the Book of Mormon narrative is destroyed.

I don't know, as I said, being from whence it first sprang upon this relatively modern world, it seemed to have worked quite well until much more recently when the authorship of Isaiah came into question.

When Jesus, in the Book of Mormon, wanted to include the words of Malachi (written long after 600 BC), Jesus quoted him directly. No claim was made that Malachi's writings were on the brass plates, because Joseph knew that Malachi wrote much later. But Deutero-Isaiah is claimed by the book itself to have been contained in the brass plates, which is obviously impossible.

Two separate cases most certainly. As i said, i do not know that Deutero Isaiah was a summarized snippet of the actual Isaiah or not. There are too many possibilities here to call it all bunk and leave it at that.

The reason why Joseph was smart about how he included Malachi but foolish about the way he included Deutero-Isaiah is because he didn't know that some passages from Isaiah were written long after the death of Isaiah, and attributed to him after the fact. We learned that later. Oops.

This is only one of many, many similar problems.

I find the whole issue a little more complex. Its easy to see it the way you have described when skeptical. Its not so easy when you trust somethign wholly other to be an answer from God.

[_stemelbow]

Some of us might just see what you see becuase we have been there. One of the biggest road blocks and the source of most of the bias against the evidence is the spiritual, or how most LDS define it. How do you show one that the earth is indeed billions of years old and that a Global flood did not happen?

But while you think you've been here, you simply don't offer any reason to accept that you have. The issue here is can someone who "knows" the Church is not true be able to show one who thinks the Church is true but is open to correction that it is indeed proven untrue? I don't see much of a case for that at all. I would like to know if it is not true. But can anyone demonstrate that it is not? Not to this point. Indeed no one has really tried to do so.

[_Buffalo]

Two separate cases most certainly. As i said, i do not know that Deutero Isaiah was a summarized snippet of the actual Isaiah or not. There are too many possibilities here to call it all bunk and leave it at that.

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.

Examples:

http://LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/2-ne/7?lang=eng

http://LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/2-ne/8?lang=eng

http://LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/20?lang=eng

http://LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/21.26?lang=eng

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.

I find the whole issue a little more complex. Its easy to see it the way you have described when skeptical. Its not so easy when you trust somethign wholly other to be an answer from God.

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.

[_Themis]

But while you think you've been here, you simply don't offer any reason to accept that you have.

I am not aware that I tried to.

The issue here is can someone who "knows" the Church is not true be able to show one who thinks the Church is true but is open to correction that it is indeed proven untrue? I don't see much of a case for that at all. I would like to know if it is not true.

I thought I wanted to know as well. Looking back I can see that I thought so, but it was not reality. Almost everyone believes they are open to correction. Again, How do you show one that the earth is indeed billions of years old and that a Global flood did not happen?

But can anyone demonstrate that it is not? Not to this point. Indeed no one has really tried to do so.

You are talking about a lot of material. I cannot go over it for you. It would take to long, and I think someone who really is open to correction does not need me. When I was really open to correction I was able to figure it out on my own. You can certainly open all the thread you want for each subject and I am willing to participate.

[_Themis]

by the way Stem. I do think you are on a road that may lead to figuring it out. It can be a long road, as it has been for many of us. I am not worried about where you will end up as long as you are happy.