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

[_Themis]

Well, I've listened to a number of people over the years who claim to believe in the narrative of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, on this message board and on other boards. In all truthfulness, I disbelieve them all. Why? It just seems too far fetched. Now, why would all the FSM enthusiasts lie? I really don't know. I am doubtful that their purposes for dealing in fabrications or half truths can be fully understood. But I'm sure they have their reasons.

I guess you must be very bad at evaluating truth claims if you cannot figure that one out. :) I have never seen anyone seriously believe in the FSM. I think you know that and why it is even brought up. Certainly Morely's story could be made up or exaggerated. I have seen you go this route consistently to protect your beliefs rather then evaluate them. It does again prove what Morely said from the beggining that members will just chalk it up to sin, lying, etc.

[_mentalgymnast]

You didn't explain why you find apostate stories (or my story in particular) to be improbable. Is it that you don't believe that anyone would try that hard to get a testimony? I doubt if I gave it more effort than you'd put into it. The church meant as much to me as it does to you.

Please elaborate.

I'm not doubting that a person can put much effort into gaining a testimony. I've been there, done that and continue to do so. I have not received a sure witness of the truth claims of the LDS church up to and including this point in time. I am in my fifties and have been a life long member. I have mulled over and read as much, if not more, of the material that is available in regards to early church history (LDS and early Christian), secular scholarship, world religions, science and religion, etc., than many who have left the church or become disaffiliated.

Are you saying that because you have not received a sure witness, that you are unwilling to live by faith and have hope? I think that a testimony is something we work at throughout our lives.

Unless we choose to apostatize and cut ourselves off from seeking further light and knowledge.

At that point, a testimony becomes out of reach and a person is somewhat obligated to go on the defensive and continually prove to oneself and others that apostasy was the right choice.

That's what you're doing, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

[_Morley]

I'm not doubting that a person can put much effort into gaining a testimony. I've been there, done that and continue to do so. I have not received a sure witness of the truth claims of the LDS church up to and including this point in time. I am in my fifties and have been a life long member. I have mulled over and read as much, if not more, of the material that is available in regards to early church history (LDS and early Christian), secular scholarship, world religions, science and religion, etc., than many who have left the church or become disaffiliated.

Are you saying that because you have not received a sure witness, that you are unwilling to live by faith and have hope? I think that a testimony is something we work at throughout our lives.

Unless we choose to apostatize and cut ourselves off from seeking further light and knowledge.

At that point, a testimony becomes out of reach and a person is somewhat obligated to go on the defensive and continually prove to oneself and others that apostasy was the right choice.

That's what you're doing, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

Actually, no. I don't feel at all defensive about my position. I made the right choice. I certainly haven't "cut [myself] off from seeking further light and knowledge."

I believe you're taking the same position that my brother-in-law takes (correct me if I'm wrong). He maintains that if I'd have stuck with it, said testimony would have eventually come. When I ask him how long would I have had to wait before I got it, he says there's no time limit for the Lord.

There's no time limit for the Lord. That's a great sounding slogan, but fundamentally, it's one of those "you're just not working hard enough" statements. If you get the witness, it's because you did what you were supposed to. If you don't, you are somehow lacking--in time, effort, virtue, faith, ... or something.

And it's a claim anyone could make for any faith-based belief system.

Tell me where I'm mistaken.

edited to add: You're basically telling me that I "haven't paid the price." Am I correct?

[_Themis]

I'm not doubting that a person can put much effort into gaining a testimony. I've been there, done that and continue to do so.

We have all done it to some extent in many religions.

I have not received a sure witness of the truth claims of the LDS church up to and including this point in time. I am in my fifties and have been a life long member.

That would be true for every member in all religions.

I have mulled over and read as much, if not more, of the material that is available in regards to early church history (LDS and early Christian), secular scholarship, world religions, science and religion, etc., than many who have left the church or become disaffiliated.

So? This whole thread is about whether people want to know the truth. Almost everyone would say yes, but I think the real number would be much less. This is why apologists always have to seek the unlikely over the likely to maintain and try to protect their beliefs. This to me says they do not really want the truth if it does not support core beliefs.

Are you saying that because you have not received a sure witness, that you are unwilling to live by faith and have hope? I think that a testimony is something we work at throughout our lives.

Of course one has to work on a testimony or belefs that do not have sufficient evidence. The church encourages members to keep telling yourself something is true. This is a great way to increase faith, but it is not a good thing.

Unless we choose to apostatize and cut ourselves off from seeking further light and knowledge.

Apostacy is just one changing beliefs from some religion. The LDS church is full of converts who apostized from another religion.

At that point, a testimony becomes out of reach and a person is somewhat obligated to go on the defensive and continually prove to oneself and others that apostasy was the right choice.

This is just another example supporting what he said about how members will view his change in beliefs. It has nothting to do with the validity of LDS beliefs, but how members try to protect their beliefs.

That's what you're doing, isn't it?

The same can be said of your participation here. I just assume people like to talk about issues they are interested in. Don't be ignorant enough to think what you just did here. I really think you choose a great name for yourself.

[_stemelbow]

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.

eehhhh...what's the point? No matter what I say, particularly if I say it genuinely you'll come back with a comment about what is wrong with LDS, or me. I'll leave it alone. I did not in any way indicate anyone here is asking me to deny any of my experiences.

[_mentalgymnast]

Actually, no. I don't feel at all defensive about my position. I made the right choice. I certainly haven't "cut [myself] off from seeking further light and knowledge."

I believe you're taking the same position that my brother-in-law takes (correct me if I'm wrong). He maintains that if I'd have stuck with it, said testimony would have eventually come. When I ask him how long would I have had to wait before I got it, he says there's no time limit for the Lord.

I don't know the answer to that for you. I do know that having persevered over a much longer period of time than I would have liked, I have come closer to rather than farther away from having a better handle on what the church is all about and its relevance in the world.

There's no time limit for the Lord. That's a great sounding slogan, but fundamentally, it's one of those "you're just not working hard enough" statements. If you get the witness, it's because you did what you were supposed to. If you don't, you are somehow lacking--in time, effort, virtue, faith, ... or something.

And it's a claim anyone could make for any faith-based belief system.

Tell me where I'm mistaken.

edited to add: You're basically telling me that I "haven't paid the price." Am I correct?

Well, it is true that we can't dictate to God what he should or shouldn't do. And when. He's the one with the power to do what he considers best for individuals and humanity as a whole. Of course it is up to us to trust that this is so. Or not.

I don't know that a witness is always a simple formula. It seems to be for many, but for others it's not. For me it seems as though my cross to bear in this life is to learn line upon line and precept upon precept, here and little and there a little. But then, that's a formula too. Just not a simple one.

I don't know that those of us that haven't received a sure witness that the restoration is true and all that this encapsulates are necessarily lacking/slothful or lazy. In my case I don't think that this is the case.

I do know that there may be cases and/or situations where people have made life changing decisions to cast the church behind prematurely. Or at least in my estimation they have.

One of the easiest ways to push the church off and pay it no mind, by the way, is to take the position that the church is really no different than any other religion, so it can be treated the same. I'd call it the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" outlook on the world.

Regards,
MG

[_stemelbow]

The Beatles example is exactly parallel.[\quote]

I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

What we have is a document that we know for a fact was written during the Babylonian exile, showing up in another document that claims it was written in 600 BC.

I don't think that's an exact description. What "fact" do you really know? We certainly don't know if deutero Isaiah was not based off something Isaiah actually wrote with some, at the time, modern things thrown in.

That is the textbook definition of an anachronism. What you're doing is exactly as I said - creating alternative possibilities out of whole cloth, without any supporting evidence, in order to defend a pre-determined conclusion. Someone searching for the truth doesn't do that.

What I haven't done is assumed as you have assumed. There must be assumptions made on things like this. I simply am leaving the conclusion open right now, admitting there are possibilities. It seems you have decided to conclude that deutero Isaiah proves the Book of Mormon not authentically ancient. Fine by me. But your assumed case doesn't convince me, and that's what this thread is about. I guess you can now conclude that means I don't let the evidence speak for itself, or that i am drawing up theories that leave the door open for faith. Whatever. That's not really doing me much good, since it doesn't matter. I was asked that if I would like to know if I"m wrong about the Church. Just because I don't conclude the same as you, doesn't mean you've proved the Church not true. That's silly.

What are you trying to say with this? That Isaiah wrote Deutero Isaiah?

No. Just that we don't know if deutero Isaiah was not something derived from a more ancient source. I think its fair to say that these scriptures from the Old Testament aren't written, as we have them, by the oritinal authors. There has to have been some editing, and/or copying mistakes, and perhaps, in some cases, extensively so. I don't see how that we can easily conclude the Book of Mormon is false because of that. Indeed, in light of conclusions drawn from others, including Old Testament scholar Maragaret Barker, the Book of Mormon nicely fits in the context of the Old Testament time from which Lehi and co sprang. Such makes your conclusions about me and what I'm doing seem ill-informed to me.

[_mentalgymnast]

We have all done it to some extent in many religions.

and

That would be true for every member in all religions.

Themis, from that stuff I've read that you've put out there, you seem to be a fan of the Guns, Germs, and Steel world view. If that's the case, your view is going to be distorted through Diamond's lense when it comes to the way you view the LDS religion because you're going to automatically throw it in the same category (basically under the bus) as other world religions.

Of course one has to work on a testimony or belefs that do not have sufficient evidence. The church encourages members to keep telling yourself something is true. This is a great way to increase faith, but it is not a good thing.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the church encourages its members to seek knowledge/learning through study and faith and then hold fast to that which is true.

Regards,
MG

[_Buffalo]

No. Just that we don't know if deutero Isaiah was not something derived from a more ancient source. I think its fair to say that these scriptures from the Old Testament aren't written, as we have them, by the oritinal authors. There has to have been some editing, and/or copying mistakes, and perhaps, in some cases, extensively so. I don't see how that we can easily conclude the Book of Mormon is false because of that. Indeed, in light of conclusions drawn from others, including Old Testament scholar Maragaret Barker, the Book of Mormon nicely fits in the context of the Old Testament time from which Lehi and co sprang. Such makes your conclusions about me and what I'm doing seem ill-informed to me.

There's no evidence that D. Isaiah is more ancient than the time period already discussed. It's full of issues that were very hot in the days of the exile.

Since there is no evidence to support this alternative possibility you are offering, why are you seriously considering it? Do you often give serious consideration to ideas for which there is no evidence? Or is it just when they support Mormonism that you have such a charitable view of evidence-free ideas?

I hope that doesn't come across as hostile. It probably does, but I don't mean it to be.

Parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament in general are another matter.

[_Morley]

One of the easiest ways to push the church off and pay it no mind, by the way, is to take the position that the church is really no different than any other religion, so it can be treated the same. I'd call it the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" outlook on the world.

Regards,
MG

I think you're right. That would, of course, mean that the way to hold onto the Church is to give it some kind of special status so no rules that you apply to other organizations can be applied to the Church. That seems, to me, to be a little intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

Thank you, MG, for the reasoned dialogue.

Take care.