I'm LDS....let's learn from eachother.....

[Jerusha]

Ever check that book out? Many here have a lot in common with Gerald & Sandra Tanner, even though they are fundamentalist Christians. They made a lot of perfectly valid points against the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. ).

That is why I believe that the best argument against the Book of Mormon is partial historical accuracy. One’s cultural heritage and emotional overlay naturally tend to color one’s attitude towards that book, and therefore the Bible. I suppose that is part of the recovery process.

 

[ibkc]

Glad we agree that the Bible is on the same plane as the Book of Mormon. Neither reflect reality, history or science.

Setting aside whether or not Jesus existed, much else in the Bible did exist. Palestine existed, and still exists. Bethlehem and Jerusalem existed and still exist. Going far, far back, the extremely ancient city of Jericho existed. The tribe of Isreal existed. Pontius Pilate existed. King Herod existed. John the Baptist existed. Saints Peter and Paul existed. Rome existed and still exists. And on and on and on.

Pretty much nothing and no one in the BoM existed. The debatable real person in the BoM is Jesus. And the Jesus in the BoM bears little resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament.

So it is the Book of Mormon which does not reflect reality, history or science.

 

[majick275]

I’m the one doing the tempting, and I’m comfortable with that. The competition is open to you also, by the way. If you change your mind, and want to make a quick & easy thousand dollars (which, with the way the currency is rapidly inflating, might be enough to take your kids out for tacos next week) say the word.

When I was about 21 I read the Tanner’s book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. I interviewed her for a project I was doing at the U about a year later.

Ever check that book out? Many here have a lot in common with Gerald & Sandra Tanner, even though they are fundamentalist Christians. They made a lot of perfectly valid points against the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, all the arguments they made were equally applicable to the book they replaced it with (the Bible).

i’ve read most of the Tanners writings. they are good about verifying sources and tend to have pretty thorough documentation. I don’t always agree with their conclusions but all of it is thought provoking.

I can’t accept your offer in that it violates my morals as i explained earlier. besides I don’t think a contemporary individuals minor miracles could possibly prove or disprove the bible. I think if you apply the tanners arguments and methodology to the bible you get apples to oranges right off the bat. I think the historicity of the bible is easily shown. Faith comes in on whether you believe it’s miraculous events are first, accurately described and secondly of divine origin.

If one believes in god it’s pretty easy to accept the bible. (jews and muslims accept the old testament and all christians accept the new) if you don’t believe in God then then religion is pretty much a waste of time. even if you desire community building, etc. you would be better served through a non-religious civic organization.

 

[Jerusha]

Pretty much nothing and no one in the BoM existed. The debatable real person in the BoM is Jesus. And the Jesus in the BoM bears little resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament.

So it is the Book of Mormon which does not reflect reality, history or science.

You forget the Vikings. And that alternative time-line fits extremely well. I agree, the Jesus of the BOM does not fit. But there is an explanation for that, too.

 

[Jerusha]

testing

 

[LaMar]

I can’t accept your offer in that it violates my morals as i explained earlier. besides I don’t think a contemporary individuals minor miracles could possibly prove or disprove the bible. I think if you apply the tanners arguments and methodology to the bible you get apples to oranges right off the bat. I think the historicity of the bible is easily shown. Faith comes in on whether you believe it’s miraculous events are first, accurately described and secondly of divine origin.

If you really believed in the Bible it would be no problem to do a miracle. I think it’s in Mark where the true believers are promised the power to convince their neighbors by healings, drinking poison, and other such magic. That’s where the snake handlers in rural W. Virginia get their inspiration.

The historicity of the Bible has been disproven thousands of times throughout history. If you believe the Bible then you’re going to believe the earth is a flat square, which is held up by four pillars. You’re going to believe that Jews were slaves in Egypt and left by walking on the dry seabed (never happened).

The Book of Mormon was written by a failed preacher from New York. The New Testament was written by a failed rabbi from Tarsus. Virgins don’t have kids. Dead folks don’t wake up. If someone could cure a leper, he could also cure leprosy for ever, but didn’t. Turning water into wine? Sounds like a Las Vegas magic show.

Hardly apples and oranges. Same is same.

If one believes in god it’s pretty easy to accept the bible. (jews and muslims accept the old testament and all christians accept the new) if you don’t believe in God then then religion is pretty much a waste of time. even if you desire community building, etc. you would be better served through a non-religious civic organization.

You’re assuming I’m not happy where I’m at, which is a mistake. If I were to leave, I’d never join the Christians. I’d join the Jews (who are honest enough to admit that it’s mythology and tradition, rather than reality) or the Muslims (who at least had a messenger who actually existed, like the Mormons do). Why bother? Wherever you go, there you are.

Take Care,

LaMar

 

[LaMar]

That is why I believe that the best argument against the Book of Mormon is partial historical accuracy. One’s cultural heritage and emotional overlay naturally tend to color one’s attitude towards that book, and therefore the Bible. I suppose that is part of the recovery process.

Huh? What are you recovering from?

 

[Jerusha]

That’s where the snake handlers in rural W. Virginia get their inspiration…

. I’d join the Jews (who are honest enough to admit that it’s mythology and tradition, rather than reality)

There are plenty of Catholics who believe the Bible has plenty of mythology and tradition mixed in with historicity. )note discussion about Zoroasteranism and the lack of response to your comment about Gilgamesh the other day). As for the snake handlers-- their traditions have a lot to do with same culture that gave birth to Mormonism.

 

[Jerusha]

Huh? What are you recovering from?

 

[LaMar]

There are plenty of Catholics who believe the Bible has plenty of mythology and tradition mixed in with historicity. )note discussion about Zoroasteranism and the lack of response to your comment about Gilgamesh the other day). As for the snake handlers-- their traditions have a lot to do with same culture that gave birth to Mormonism.

Glad you also agree that the Bible and Book of Mormon are in the same realm, i.e. works of mythology and literature, rather than a science book.

Mormonism and snake handling seem to have evolved from different sources, but in many ways the expressive nature of the worship (you could analogize fast & testimony meeting to handling snakes) draw upon similar themes. I guess in Catholic terms they’d both be tapping into the same psychological processes that encourage mortification of the flesh (or whatever you guys call it when you whip yourselves bloody.) Good call, and very astute observation.

 

[majick275]

I can’t accept your offer in that it violates my morals as i explained earlier. besides I don’t think a contemporary individuals minor miracles could possibly prove or disprove the bible. I think if you apply the tanners arguments and methodology to the bible you get apples to oranges right off the bat. I think the historicity of the bible is easily shown. Faith comes in on whether you believe it’s miraculous events are first, accurately described and secondly of divine origin.

If you really believed in the Bible it would be no problem to do a miracle.

i disagree.Jesus emphasizes repeatedly not to do this. no miracles for money (Acts 8:18-24) no miracles just to show people it’s true (Matt 16:1-4) this test is wrong (matt 4:7) even jesus spoke to the problem with this.(mark 6:4-6)

I think it’s in Mark where the true believers are promised the power to convince their neighbors by healings, drinking poison, and other such magic. That’s where the snake handlers in rural W. Virginia get their inspiration.

ye do err not knowing the scriptures Mark 16 is specific to the original apostles but even if taken in the context of universal believers it is not a recommendation for worship nor a contradiction to the instruction not to seek signs but rather a promise that whatever is necessary to preach the gospel can be accomplished by the holy spirit.it tells us that when these things happen in the process of conversion we can be assured by these signs. it does not tell us to seek after them.

The historicity of the Bible has been disproven thousands of times throughout history.

when ? where? CFR please. the places, the people, the non-miraculous events are often shown to be true and I have yet to see any “disproven”. the miraculous events and the divine origin are of course matters of faith.

If you believe the Bible then you’re going to believe the earth is a flat square, which is held up by four pillars. You’re going to believe that Jews were slaves in Egypt and left by walking on the dry seabed (never happened).

I see no requirement to believe in a flat square earth supported by pillars in order to believe in the bible. I do believe the jews were slaves in egypt and I believe they walked through a dry seabed. where is proof that never happened?

The Book of Mormon was written by a failed preacher from New York.

I agree

The New Testament was written by a failed rabbi from Tarsus.

you knw that isn’t true. teh various books were written by a number of people with entire groups deciding the canon.

Virgins don’t have kids.

except mary which is why this is miraculous

Dead folks don’t wake up.

unless God raises them. once again that’s why it’s miraculous.

If someone could cure a leper, he could also cure leprosy for ever, but didn’t.

yes he could, he chose not to. what’s the point?

Turning water into wine? Sounds like a Las Vegas magic show.

but he did it

Hardly apples and oranges. Same is same.

what was done by a handful of men in a few years time and directly contradicts known facts is very different than something that many worked on for generations that is in accordance with known history.

If one believes in god it’s pretty easy to accept the bible. (jews and muslims accept the old testament and all christians accept the new) if you don’t believe in God then then religion is pretty much a waste of time. even if you desire community building, etc. you would be better served through a non-religious civic organization.

You’re assuming I’m not happy where I’m at, which is a mistake.

i think this goes beyond you. your viewpoint is not unique. My point on this is it is more more efficient if one doesn’t believe in god but values the non-religious aspects of churches to be involved in non-religious civic organizations. that is a generalization that cannot be readily applied to all of the side issues in your specific situation.

If I were to leave, I’d never join the Christians. I’d join the Jews (who are honest enough to admit that it’s mythology and tradition, rather than reality) or the Muslims (who at least had a messenger who actually existed, like the Mormons do). Why bother? Wherever you go, there you are.

Take Care,

LaMar

the “jews” are hardly in that category. some jewish groups may see the torah as allegory or even myth but the majority i believe view it as history and scripture. your criteria for the muslims wold leave open the branch davidians, jim jones, father divine, the shakers, JW’s, SDA’s and many others as viable alternatives. shoot why not scientology for that matter?

I “bother” because I believe it DOES make a difference. I believe the self proclaimed messengers of these other religions to be false. I believe in God and I believe he gave us a correct message and established a real church for us. My studies have led me to believe that this is the catholic church. I think that way you go leads to very different places. My goal is to get to the one where God is present.

 

[Jerusha]

Glad you also agree that the Bible and Book of Mormon are in the same realm, i.e. works of mythology and literature, rather than a science book.

I won’t argue with you. Much more wisdom and validity to the Bible. Stronger parallels in other traditions.
Mormonism and snake handling seem to have evolved from different sources, but in many ways the expressive nature of the worship (you could analogize fast & testimony meeting to handling snakes) draw upon similar themes…

You are getting there. Taking scriptures out of context. Theological speculation by semi-literate people…Back-woods white folk trying to make sense of the world they are in.

 

[LaMar]

the “jews” are hardly in that category. some jewish groups may see the torah as allegory or even myth but the majority i believe view it as history and scripture. your criteria for the muslims wold leave open the branch davidians, jim jones, father divine, the shakers, JW’s, SDA’s and many others as viable alternatives. shoot why not scientology for that matter?

There’s nothing in Scientology that’s any more unbelievable or ridiculous than the Jesus story. Xenu, Thetans, all that stuff. It’s in the same category as Nephi, Jesus and Moses.

If Saul of Tarsus (or L. Ron Hubbard or Franz Kafka) wrote a novel which you use as motivation to achieve your potential and make the world a better place, I think it’s great. But don’t kid yourself that anyone else should take any of it literally. If it were obvious, you wouldn’t have to argue so hard to explain away the lack of evidence. And, if it were so great, you wouldn’t have to sell it.

 

[majick275]

if you believe that way then why bother to make the world a better place? who cares about achieving their potential in that event? i mean ones potential is a subjective definition based on ones values. if there is no “higher law” then what values beyond maslows hierarchy of needs are even relevant? at best you make the case for the pagan but your reasoning would seem to promote social darwinism at it’s worst.

Thomas More said that if a man did not believe in God or an afterlife of any kind he could never be trusted as he would not be logically driven to acknowledge any authority or principles outside himself.

 

[LaMar]

if you believe that way then why bother to make the world a better place? who cares about achieving their potential in that event? i mean ones potential is a subjective definition based on ones values. if there is no “higher law” then what values beyond maslows hierarchy of needs are even relevant? at best you make the case for the pagan but your reasoning would seem to promote social darwinism at it’s worst.

Are you the type of person who needs the carrot/stick of some nonexistent heaven/hell to do what’s right?

Some are. You might be one of them (I’m not pretending to know). I’m not. My parents gave me an ethical platform which went far beyond the Jesus/Lehi folk tales.

For people who actually would go out and cause a bunch of trouble without a literal belief in a judgment day, I’m in favor of them sticking with it. For the rest of us, we manage to do the right thing whether or not we’ve got someone keeping score, simply on principle.

 

[PaulDupre]

Are you the type of person who needs the carrot/stick of some nonexistent heaven/hell to do what’s right?

Some are. You might be one of them (I’m not pretending to know). I’m not. My parents gave me an ethical platform which went far beyond the Jesus/Lehi folk tales.

For people who actually would go out and cause a bunch of trouble without a literal belief in a judgment day, I’m in favor of them sticking with it. For the rest of us, we manage to do the right thing whether or not we’ve got someone keeping score, simply on principle.

Hi LaMar,

Would you at least concede that the value system you learned from your parents, and which pervades western society, is the legacy of Judeo-Christian religion?

Paul

 

[MrS]

If anyone ever had any doubt, let that doubt be now removed…

LDS are not Christians… not even Donny and Marie, and not governor what’s his name.

.

 

[LaMar]

Hi LaMar,

Would you at least concede that the value system you learned from your parents, and which pervades western society, is the legacy of Judeo-Christian religion?

Paul

I’d never deny that. It goes further back past Judaism and Islam and Christianity, to Classical antiquity.

philosophyarchive.com/person.php?philosopher=Epictetus&era=100-199
epicurus.net/
philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm

And if you want to go even further, you can keep traveling…

wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

My appreciation for the Abrahamic and Mormon traditions are the sole reason I don’t just call myself an Atheist. At the same time, I can study the great minds of Judaism and Christianity and realize that the pillars of the traditions probably approached them in the way that I do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus

I can say I believe in God (in that I believe in an ideal), but my definition is much different than Magick’s, and probably pretty close to that fellow’s.

 

[majick275]

Are you the type of person who needs the carrot/stick of some nonexistent heaven/hell to do what’s right?

you misunderstand my point. what is “right”? outside of religious based definitions we may have some room for the philosophical but still it leaves open to debate what IS right and when and who decides? the atheist is certainly the most likely candidate for situational ethics but worse, how does one decide what ethics to start with? in the absence of higher law what is the motivation for common good? outside of mutual benefit there is none. without any reason for sacrifice of any type we limit that definition greatly. we also place a great burden on the individual to see long term mutual benefit and even then we are still limited to Robert Ringer’s version of “rational selfishness” at BEST!

Some are. You might be one of them (I’m not pretending to know). I’m not. My parents gave me an ethical platform which went far beyond the Jesus/Lehi folk tales.

and what did your parents base their ethics on? what is the origin of their ideals?

For people who actually would go out and cause a bunch of trouble without a literal belief in a judgment day, I’m in favor of them sticking with it. For the rest of us, we manage to do the right thing whether or not we’ve got someone keeping score, simply on principle.

what principle? whose principles? while I don’t discount the hawthorne effect, even if you don’t “keep score” you at least have to have consensus on the rules or you have chaos.

and to answer your direct question. YES. I am the type of person who needs God’s rules and heaven.

 

[majick275]

I’d never deny that. It goes further back past Judaism and Islam and Christianity, to Classical antiquity.

philosophyarchive.com/person.php?philosopher=Epictetus&era=100-199
epicurus.net/
philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm

And if you want to go even further, you can keep traveling…

wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

My appreciation for the Abrahamic and Mormon traditions are the sole reason I don’t just call myself an Atheist. At the same time, I can study the great minds of Judaism and Christianity and realize that the pillars of the traditions probably approached them in the way that I do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus

I can say I believe in God (in that I believe in an ideal), but my definition is much different than Magick’s, and probably pretty close to that fellow’s.

you believe as Duns did? he was pretty catholic in his expressed views.

you seem to discount that judaism has existed from the beginning of humanity. that appears to be your basis for claiming that the bible is copied from other traditions rather than the other way around or the parallel experience view that other traditions are based on the same origin but a different perspective. would you then consider yourself more of a deist then?