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

[_Buffalo]

"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

The critical question we should ask to determine whether or not someone is actually looking for the truth is this: does your belief scale with the evidence?

[_Buffalo]

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.

Yes, there is experience and then there is interpreting experiences. In the church we're trained to interpret certain subjective experiences in a certain way.

[_mentalgymnast]

The critical question we should ask to determine whether or not someone is actually looking for the truth is this: does your belief scale with the evidence?

I agree. But we can only answer that question for ourselves, not someone else.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

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

True. But you or I cannot be the judge of whether someone else does or doesn't really want to know the truth.

Especially on a message board.

Regards,
MG

[_stemelbow]

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"?

But that’s not a parallel with what we’re discussing here. It’d be more like someone presenting a recorded song of “I am The Walrus”, with some minor variations, that is not sung by the Beatles, claiming the recording was in 1942. We don’t necessarily have the answers to who actually wrote the song, or where it came from, just that it was claimed to be recorded then. We’re left with a number of questions: 1. Who wrote the song? 2. Who is performing in the recording? 3. Could it be said that the Beatles got the song from a someone else? 4. Is the recording authentically from 1942 or is it really something recorded after the Beatles came out with the song? And probably other questions left unanswered.

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.

I get that. But its disputed that the things written after Isaiah’s day were not just additions to original writings of Isaiah deemed appropriate by scribes or not. We simply don’t know.

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.

But there are a number of unanswered questions as I tried to explain. I don’t think the evidence is clearly demonstrating what you are advocating any more than it is demonstrating a number of possibilities, one of which I’ve tried to elaborate on. We’re left with a number of questions, it seems.

[_Buffalo]

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"?

But that’s not a parallel with what we’re discussing here. It’d be more like someone presenting a recorded song of “I am The Walrus”, with some minor variations, that is not sung by the Beatles, claiming the recording was in 1942. We don’t necessarily have the answers to who actually wrote the song, or where it came from, just that it was claimed to be recorded then. We’re left with a number of questions: 1. Who wrote the song? 2. Who is performing in the recording? 3. Could it be said that the Beatles got the song from a someone else? 4. Is the recording authentically from 1942 or is it really something recorded after the Beatles came out with the song? And probably other questions left unanswered.

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.

I get that. But its disputed that the things written after Isaiah’s day were not just additions to original writings of Isaiah deemed appropriate by scribes or not. We simply don’t know.

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.

But there are a number of unanswered questions as I tried to explain. I don’t think the evidence is clearly demonstrating what you are advocating any more than it is demonstrating a number of possibilities, one of which I’ve tried to elaborate on. We’re left with a number of questions, it seems.

The Beatles example is exactly parallel. 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. 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.

In response to: "I get that. But its disputed that the things written after Isaiah’s day were not just additions to original writings of Isaiah deemed appropriate by scribes or not. We simply don’t know. "

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

[_Morley]

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.

Interesting.

The LDS Church and its members are as a bad as anyone else (some would say worse than anyone else), about claiming those who don't believe haven't "paid the price."

Forty years ago, having doubts and trying to strengthen my testimony, I read the Book of Mormon, fasted and prayed. It didn't work. So I went to see the stake president, a man I knew and liked. Gradually, in desperation, I upped my fasting to one 36-hour fast each week and one five-day fast a year. I did this for five years. I prayed continuously, read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, Talmage's Jesus the Christ, the Doctrines of Salvation (you know the drill). I paid tithing, was a counselor in the elder's quorum, taught gospel doctrine classes in Sunday School, went to the temple. I threw out my rock and roll LPs (I still wake up in a sweat about this). I tried attending church in Joseph Fielding Smith's home ward. I took the full missionary discussions--as an active member. I gave the process the next ten full years of my life. Still my testimony waned rather then waxed. Why did I not get a testimony? I was told that I must be lying about something, that I must have some secret sin, that there must be something wrong with my character.

I still get told by my TBM friends and family that somehow, I have not been willing to "pay the price" necessary for the witness of God and the Holy Ghost. Or that there is something wrong with my character. Or that I want too much from the Church. Or that I just plain think too much.

C'est la vie.

[_Themis]

True. But you or I cannot be the judge of whether someone else does or doesn't really want to know the truth.

Especially on a message board.

Regards,
MG

It is more difficult to judge correctly, which is why I have expressed some of the attributes instead of saying specifically who I think really wants the truth and who does not.

[_Buffalo]

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.

Interesting.

The LDS Church and its members are as a bad as anyone else (some would say worse than anyone else), about claiming those who don't believe haven't "paid the price."

Forty years ago, having doubts and trying to strengthen my testimony, I read the Book of Mormon, fasted and prayed. It didn't work. So I went to see the stake president, a man I knew and liked. Gradually, in desperation, I upped my fasting to one 36-hour fast each week and one five-day fast a year. I did this for five years. I prayed continuously, read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, Talmage's Jesus the Christ, the Doctrines of Salvation (you know the drill). I paid tithing, was a counselor in the elder's quorum, taught gospel doctrine classes in Sunday School, went to the temple. I threw out my rock and roll LPs (I still wake up in a sweat about this). I tried attending church in Joseph Fielding Smith's home ward. I took the full missionary discussions--as an active member. I gave the process the next ten full years of my life. Still my testimony waned rather then waxed. Why did I not get a testimony? I was told that I must be lying about something, that I must have some secret sin, that there must be something wrong with my character.

I still get told by my TBM friends and family that somehow, I have not been willing to "pay the price" necessary for the witness of God and the Holy Ghost. Or that there is something wrong with my character. Or that I want too much from the Church. Or that I just plain think too much.

C'est la vie.

The price you paid was much, much higher than most.

[_Themis]

The price you paid was much, much higher than most.

It seems God is not very consistent. I think though it is really about our bodies ability to produce spiritual experiences. Some people, religious or not, tend to do it fairly easy while others can't seem to get very good ones at all no matter how hard they try.