|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Mormonism true?
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Louise, as a historian, if a person said to you that a very large tribe of people were in a foreign country for 430 years and that their culture has no trace of that foreign language, pottery, architecture, writing systems,
literary traditions, or clothing after spending 430 years there, would you think they were cracked?
Yet that is what Christians (and Jews) say about the Israelites. Yet there is no archaelogical evidence of the Exodus. There is no mention of Yahweh or Isrealite names in any tombs of Egypt. In spite of 430 years of occupation. To say that is historically odd is to be supremely minimalist.
Mad Geo,
People have said that to me, and I've told them I think it's nonsense. Just as I'm happily doing for our Mormon friend. You're talking to the wrong person here. I think archaeologically there is no evidence for taking Exodus literally. I've seen people produce nonsense on a par with Joseph Smith's claims in tring to 'prove' it. I regard it as a myth and every time I see some publicity-seeking idiot like Rohl, trying to claim they've got the archaeological/historical explanation for it, I put my head in my hands and groan.
I once sat in a pub with someone who told me it was literally true because they'd had a vision of dancing across the parted Red Sea as part of the Israelite tribes with Moses - guess how much historical credibility I gave that?
quote:
I happen to be friends with a professor of Biblical Literature that specializes in the New Testament. When I talk to him he is not nearly so convinced of the historicity of the New Testament as some are here.
I think we can agree that the books of the New Testament were not composed in the 19th century though. Yes they are a very difficult and complex set of sources to work with, but they still tell us a lot about what 1st-2nd century CE people believed, how they lived and some of what they did. By contrast a 19th century fable about an entirely non-existant ancient people hasn't a hope in hell of saying anything meaningful about the ancient world. I've got no quarrel with people saying it says interesting things about 19th century people, but to try and use it for a source on the pre-conquest Americas is as as silly as hunting for Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat
quote:
But that is not really the issue. Let's assume for a moment that a Little Green Alien was observing a Mormon advocating the veracity of his form of Truth and a Christian advocating the veracity of her form of Truth.
The alien might weigh the ratio of facts to fiction documents, the alien might weigh the facts to fiction within the individual books, or the alien might weigh the historical factuality. When the alien was done with this analysis somebody would have to explain what faith is because the Alien would most assuredly come to the conclusion that both sets of beliefs were categorically full of whoppers (literary if not historical) that could not be reconciled without a time machine (let's hope the alien has one).
To me this is not really about the accuracy of the bible. I learned a long time ago that arguing the accuracy of the bible was a lot like pissing into a hurricane. The bible is not a historical document, it is a faith document.
I think you're missing the point here. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are both faith documents and historical documents. People can get stuff out of them regardless of their historicity, but they are also historical sources. There are useful historical sources in various bits of the Bible if you know how to use them with appropriate caution and context. There's nothing like that in the Book of Mormon because it's almost completely a work of fiction written at a time very distant from the one it purports to describe.
I resist attempts by people to claim that the Book of Mormon is literally true in the same way that I resist attempts by Creationists to claim that Genesis is literally true or attempts by the David Rohls and Velikovskys of this world to prove that Exodus is literally true. You need to bear in mind that these claims of literal truth are often made to get people to acquiesce to the doctrinal content of those texts, to shut up and accept what they are told. This is not an indifferent matter. Belief in these texts can lead to people accepting doctrines that lead to real harm to themselves and others. Therefore it matters to me that the Book of Mormon is bad history, it matters to me that parts of the Bible are accepted as literal truth when they are myths. I don't think we can afford just to treat this as a relativistic matter. Some things are actually historically false and it's important to say so.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Clearly Louise you are a woman of deep thought (and I say that sincerely).
Unfortunately, you are an excessive minority. Many if not most Christians I have heard and listened to would not see your enlightened view of Genesis, Exodus, etc. I absolutely agree with you, and hope you understood, that I see both the Bible and Book of Mormon as faith documents. Where we probably disagree is that I see the Bible and the Book of Mormon as almost nothing but faith documents. I have had sufficient evidence and readings to find fiction laced with truth throughout the Bible such that I choose not to make the "historical" distinction any longer. This has little to do with my "faith", however, it has to with my "facts".
Thus I am finding little patience with certain treatments of Mormons and their Faith, both aggressive and passive that I have seen being bantied about all over the Ship as of late. Seems to me a lot of Plank-eyes screaming over sawdust in their Mormon brothers eyes.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
... The Bible and the Book of Mormon are both faith documents and historical documents. People can get stuff out of them regardless of their historicity, but they are also historical sources. There are useful historical sources in various bits of the Bible if you know how to use them with appropriate caution and context. There's nothing like that in the Book of Mormon because it's almost completely a work of fiction written at a time very distant from the one it purports to describe.
I resist attempts by people to claim that the Book of Mormon is literally true in the same way that I resist attempts by Creationists to claim that Genesis is literally true or attempts by the David Rohls and Velikovskys of this world to prove that Exodus is literally true. ...
I think this bears repeating.
Thank you, Louise.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is a document who's authors used "creative fiction" and who's subsequent interpreters and scribes modified to fit the party line count as historical?
Yes. Consider medieval chronicles Full of fictions and political axe-grinding and later reworkings of earlier documents, but still worth a lot more than, say, a 19th century novel about the middle ages written by someone who didn't know much about the middle ages.
L.
[ 09. May 2005, 00:41: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Rosswiesse. Since I'm in Purg I can't say what I think of your views. But kindly please keep reading everything I say about you in Hell. Thanks bunches.
Louise, so a book that is 45% historically inaccurate matters compared to say a book that is 55% inaccurate? When both are 100% faith documents?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
I have had sufficient evidence and readings to find fiction laced with truth throughout the Bible such that I choose not to make the "historical" distinction any longer. This has little to do with my "faith", however, it has to with my "facts".
Crossposted with you Mad Geo,
I think I'm quite used to seeing this sort of thing in the sources I work with, so perhaps I'm more comfortable with it. So I do see a sharp difference between relatively contemporary sources which are a mixture of fact and fiction and which can tell me a lot, and much later 'sources' which are entirely fictional and which cannot tell me anything of use.
cheers,
L.
(will deal with further crosspost)
[ 09. May 2005, 00:56: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Louise, so a book that is 45% historically inaccurate matters compared to say a book that is 55% inaccurate? When both are 100% faith documents?
It's much more complicated than that for me.
If I'm looking at Abbot Adomnan's Life of Saint Columba it can vary from totally fictional to containing some very important historical information for which it is our only source.
On the other hand, if someone claimed to have all the answers about Columba because Adomnan had materialised in front of him last week and shown him a magical golden annotated version of the Saint's life (corrected by him in heaven) with an extra previously lost chapter on how he had discovered America in the 6th century and met Jesus who was living there who gave him a new gospel, but the Abbot had magically vanished with the plates again, leaving only the person's transcription which didn't read like a genuine early document and which didn't fit with any known history, I'd tell them to go away and stop wasting my time.
Later on, if people liked the 'New Gospel of St Columba', it might become a useful text for people studying early 21st century Scottish belief but it would still say nothing useful about the 6th - 7th century, whilst Adomnan's life of Columba would remain as precious and important for that as ever.
Does that make sense?
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
It makes perfect sense as a scholar, because you theoretically can tease out the truth from the fiction. But for the lions share of amateurs, or even quasi-professionals theologians/ministers that is not necessarily an option. I would also point out that if you were to certify a certain part of the book as "fiction" does that mean that people that have faith in it as "true" should abandon it? I think not, unless they come to that themselves or ask such. As such, the truthfullness at a faith level should be very carefully handled. I would venture to say that some here have not handled it very well. You have handled it very well I might add.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
Hi, Elder Moroni, and sorry not to reply to you sooner
quote:
However, it must be noted that if members of a church sincerely believe that their church is true - sceptic nor opposer cannot argue or try to change their position. I suppose the whole purpose of discussion is to learn from other people - and by learning one changes one's opinion on certain things.
Yes, I think you're absolutely right about the nature of belief, and the value of discussion.
The historicity of the Book of Mormon is probably always going to be one of those things on which Mormons and outsiders will never, never agree. I wonder if a better way for non-Mormons to understand what the BoM means to Mormons is to consider it as myth rather than history? The myth (I'm using the word in its proper sense, not as the equivalent of "fairy-tale") of Jesus appearing in America is a powerful one, and must have been much more so when the BoM was first published, when Americans were pushing westwards into largely unexplored and potentially dangerous territory. The idea that God's people had already occupied this country long before, and that Jesus himself had visited it, came at just the right time, and I don't think it's surprising that it had such an impact on so many people and became the cornerstone of a new expression of faith.
So I suspect that to assert that it's just a Biblical pastiche with no historical support is not really very relevant to Mormons, to whom it's not a document to be analysed so much as the foundation of their history as a community of faith.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
I agree with some of Mad Geo's points, however, looking back on the posts you are all making something very complicated, which is really a very simple observation.
THE BIBLE (yes...which I use, but I am simply using this as an argument proposing that YOUR religion and MINE is different), is built upon just as many myths and legends as the Book of Mormon. There is much evidence against the Bible - there is much evidence against SOME biblical archaeology. There is a BIG chance that the bible has been edited - and that even the Old Testament has been edited by the CE Jews in an attempt to cover up Messianic references. The Books of Moses were not even written by Moses - there is much evidence for this.
Additionally, the New Testament is ONLY an historical document as far as the "existance" of Christ is concerned. The New Testament states that Jesus rose from the dead - this takes pure faith - as does everything in the Book of Mormon. This is not an historical part of the New Testament!
It takes as much faith to believe in the Bible as it does in the Book of Mormon - this is my point. Whether or not archaeological evidence is there (and there is some lack of archaeological evidence for some parts of the bible I might add), the thing I am discussing here is FAITH.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No, it takes LESS and sufficient faith to believe the bible alone. And that faith is NOT ours any way. It is the triune one God's work in us and gift to us. Adding to the bible with legalism or with any other revelation or belief - faith - erodes true faith. Is a negative factor. Negative faith. More is LESS.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Mad Geo: I studied history before selling out and going to law school and what Louise has posted tallies with my understanding as well. A book such as the Bible, which comes from a scary variety of sources and was written long ago, at very different times, but now all strung together can be used (with caution) to draw historical conclusions of all kinds, apart from the truth of the matter asserted within. However, if the book in question was written last week from a vision by one person and purports to talk about an ancient civilization, it's pretty much useless about that civilization, though it says loads about the person who wrote it. But both are 100% religious texts with that meaning to the groups who embrace them.
However, to the extent that anyone uses these religious sources as proof of ancient historical events, that requires far greater analysis and study. Such analysis is virtually impossible/meaningless with a text determined to have been written quite recently by one person.
[ 09. May 2005, 12:46: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Louise, as a historian, if a person said to you that a very large tribe of people were in a foreign country for 430 years and that their culture has no trace of that foreign language, pottery, architecture, writing systems,
literary traditions, or clothing after spending 430 years there, would you think they were cracked?
Yet that is what Christians (and Jews) say about the Israelites. Yet there is no archaelogical evidence of the Exodus. There is no mention of Yahweh or Isrealite names in any tombs of Egypt. In spite of 430 years of occupation. To say that is historically odd is to be supremely minimalist.
There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus, not any textual evidence outside the Old Testament. Nor is there any Egyptian evidence of the individuals or events described in the Old Testament.
BUT there is plenty of Egyptian evidence for Semites and Semitic languages and Semitic names and Semitic artworks. Down to and including charicatures of greasy men with big noses that could easily have graced Nazi propaganda from the 1930s.
And there is heaps of evidence from archeaological sites in countries supposedly occupied by Semites, that there were such things as Egyptians. And the Persians and the Greeks fought with and against and wrote about both sets of peoples.
And there is huge cross-cultural influence between Egyptians and Africans in general and Semites. Including such little-known things as the alphabet. (Which went both ways twice - the idea of writing from the Middle East to Egypt, the idea of an alphabet back to Syria, where "the" alphabet was invented, which much later went back to Egypt as Coptic script. And linguists have great fun inventing more-or-less stringy theories about common ancestry of the different languages and/or influences between them.
That Egyptians and Semites lived alongside each other (& still do of course, although the Egyptians now speak a Semitic language other than now and again in church) that they lived alongside each other is obviously and undeniable from both the written history and the material arceaology and the present culture of both peoples - whatever the detailed record of battles and dates might be.
That is simply not there in the Mormon fabricated pseudo-history of North America.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Yes, but y**ng **rth cr**t**n*sm is an article of faith with some Christian groups, and no one suggests they should be excluded from the WCC(*) on the basis of rational scrutiny. (Avoid the deceased quadruped, please, step around it, thank you!)
*World Council of Churches - which requires Trinitarian Christianity as an entrance test.
You're confusing a doctrinal tenet with the demarcation between science and metaphysics. I think that as a matter of scientific fact it is possible to say that - lets take the Dead Horse out of the equation - that the Flat Earth society is wrong. That they may believe this for sincere religious reasons does not render their belief above rational criticism.
It is not possible to say that Trinitarianism is right or wrong on that particular ground. There are arguments for or against the existence of God but any metaphysical belief (including the belief that metaphysical statements are meaningless) requires an element of faith. One is obliged to engage in a degree of politesse about religous belief, no matter how bizarre one finds it, because we see through a glass darkly (although that need not preclude rational enquiry). Religious practice, I hasten to add, is another matter - I don't care who your God hates, leave them alone.
Once we enter the realm of the falsifiable that is a different matter. We can speak with greater certitude. The earth is emphatically not flat and we need not pussy foot around the issue. The same is true of a number of other beliefs. That they are sincerely held by religious believers matters not one jot. They are wrong and we need not be afraid to say so.
Um, I didn't post that. Someone else did.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
A really interesting debate has developed from which EM now seems to be missing.
The comparison of the Bible and the BoM as historically accurate documents needs a bit of qualification. Honestly, check out "The changing world of Mormonism" Tanner to see how ex-(deeply committed) Mormons see the BoM as deeply flawed. The point I made before, that it is a work of fiction which was not "plagurised" by JS but fraudulently presented as truth puts the mockers on any crediblity for BoM advocates. They argue, as does EM that I claim a "blind faith". I don't I argue that many are misguided by the call to respond because of how you feel and that a few are still actively tied into the original deception of Smith. His hands, and his hands alone are said to have been the earthly source of the translation. When his credibility and character are argued against by those who are part of what the Mormons call "apostasy" they do get a bit angry. The fact is that for the Mormon anything that isn't Moroni (never seen his name in the Bible never mind in Revelation!) is apostasy. Equally, I argue that what is presented through human guile and is not honest, if also fallible, needs a serious looking at.
The Bible, on the other hand, is not the product of any one venerated saint. Instead it is a construct from the witness of the times often given context from the archeology, anthropology and history of the time (unlike Smiths work). The matter of faith is the response one makes to the narrative and the embodied message. Do I believe that Jesus is the expected Christ? Do I see my own life in relation to this "happening" in history? Will I take stock of my own existence in relation to this message and accept its implications for me? I may consider myself motivated by the paranormal intervention of the Holy Spirit. I will certainly recognise a different appreciation of the world at large because of this revelation. Karl Barth in his Neo-Orthodoxy relates the Bible to becoming the Word of God through this work of the Spirit. I am prone to say along with Jurgen Moltmann that the Bible "is the Word of God" What needs to be our point of reference is the historical substatiation for the unsubstantiable faith that Christians hold. It ain't faith without that paradox. To believe in JS is to act without any historical reference whatso ever. To believe the Bible makes you vulnerable to the scepticism of those who want the enlightement mind to unlock ever mysterious uncertainty of faith.
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
Yea well maybe EM isn't missing. I do hope that this isn't going to make him angry again!
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Superbly put PC. The trouble with the claims of Mormonism is that they are simply not outrageous enough, unlike Christianity's. Any claim beyond Christainity's diminishes Christianity from its utterly pre-eminent, hope of the best of all possible outcomes position.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Even if Joseph Smith did read this book, there is no way that he would have been intelligent enough to, himself, link this to a biblical setting through the tribe of Manasseh, and have the amount of profound scriptural insight that would be required to present such a plagarized document.
for heavens sake, you don't have much faith in the brainpower of your founder, do you? what, do you think he was retarded or something? why ever do you think he couldn't figure that one out?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by plaintif cry:
[QB] A really interesting debate has developed from which EM now seems to be missing.
I posted a lot last week because I had the week off as my wife's just had a baby! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) But now I'm back on my mission which doesn't allow me much time to post here.
quote:
The comparison of the Bible and the BoM as historically accurate documents needs a bit of qualification. Honestly, check out "The changing world of Mormonism" Tanner to see how ex-(deeply committed) Mormons see the BoM as deeply flawed.
Yes - in a similar way how many ex-Christians do you think there are who think the bible is flawed - and the whole idea of God in general?
quote:
The point I made before, that it is a work of fiction which was not "plagurised" by JS but fraudulently presented as truth puts the mockers on any crediblity for BoM advocates. They argue, as does EM that I claim a "blind faith". I don't I argue that many are misguided by the call to respond because of how you feel and that a few are still actively tied into the original deception of Smith. His hands, and his hands alone are said to have been the earthly source of the translation.
Surprisingly this is the kind of response I like to hear - and I think you have made a very intelligent observation. I see how you could think people are tied to a religion that Joseph Smith created, and they are still under his influence - rather than blaming them for the "ridiculous" things that they believe. I think your argument here has worth. Although I don't agree with you personally - I think many people like "cradle" Mormons are definitely still under the influence of Joseph Smith.
quote:
When his credibility and character are argued against by those who are part of what the Mormons call "apostasy" they do get a bit angry. The fact is that for the Mormon anything that isn't Moroni (never seen his name in the Bible never mind in Revelation!) is apostasy. Equally, I argue that what is presented through human guile and is not honest, if also fallible, needs a serious looking at.
By this do you mean that instead of us calling other Christian denominations apostasized, they in turn say that we have apostasized and become angry by it? I would agree. I used this argument against Mormons many years ago. Again, of course I don't agree with you but I don't think that it would be worth me arguing with you! I respect your opinion.
quote:
The Bible, on the other hand, is not the product of any one venerated saint. Instead it is a construct from the witness of the times often given context from the archeology, anthropology and history of the time (unlike Smiths work).
It is our opinion of course, that the Book of Mormon was not written by one person but many - since we don't believe in dictation but translation. The Book of Mormon does make many references to the times - like the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem - and the many things and names that were present in Jerusalem at that time. Of course - we cannot justify archaeology by means of the new world, since it was for the Nephites a virgin land (this is disputable though.)
As for the bible - you have to rely upon the knowledge of the witnesses. A sceptic could easily acknowledge that Jesus Christ lived. But as for His resurrection, crucifixion, ascension... this is all testimony of the New Testament authors - which requires as much faith as believing that the Liahona in the Book of Mormon guided the Lehites to the promised land!
Overall let me tell you that you have given a very intelligent post. I can fully accept your post, as I think it has worth and you have supported your beliefs, unlike the many who just make observations without any logical thought whatsoever. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Who might that be EM? And congratulations by the way. One wife eh? Isn't that unorthodox?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who might that be EM? And congratulations by the way. One wife eh? Isn't that unorthodox?
Haha! As if that's the first time I've ever heard that! One wife's enough thanks!
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're OK mate. Heretic and all - and you're in VERY good company round here on that. You're OK ![[Smile]](smile.gif) If you can put up with my sense of humour, we'll be together somewhere after the deep six I'm sure.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
I posted a lot last week because I had the week off as my wife's just had a baby! But now I'm back on my mission which doesn't allow me much time to post here.
Congratulations! right oh mission huh! Well, can't wish you luck but then we wouldn't believe that luck is a theological proposition
quote:
Yes - in a similar way how many ex-Christians do you think there are who think the bible is flawed - and the whole idea of God in general?
But then there are a heck of a lot of people who dismiss the Bible without ever doing their homework. If the ex-Christians dismiss the Bible without considering the substantive historical evidence they miss the point. The Bible has always spoken for itself, its historicity has never been reason for rejection. Personal faith can be flawed (as I believe is mine inc.) but those who have rejected their Christianity have rarely made a case against the Bible. The Tanners, on the other hand, have made their case against Mormonism and the BoM with insight and intelligence. I don't argue that people may not reject Christianity. I do argue that none have made the same co-herent case about the Bible that the Tanners have done about Mormonism's text.
Surprisingly this is the kind of response I like to hear - and I think you have made a very intelligent observation. I see how you could think people are tied to a religion that Joseph Smith created, and they are still under his influence - rather than blaming them for the "ridiculous" things that they believe. I think your argument here has worth. Although I don't agree with you personally - I think many people like "cradle" Mormons are definitely still under the influence of Joseph Smith.
Thanks for the compliment, it is good to have reasonable dialogue. I do think that Mormonism was an original construct of JS. However, the LDS is far more a development from the fraud and given legs by many honest but misguided people. To believe sincerely that something is Christian does not make it Christ's will. Mormonism is a diversion from the purpose of Grace simply because it takes the gospel and adds a fiction to it. That was JS' mistake based upon his own desire for fame and noteriaty.
quote:
When his credibility and character are argued against by those who are part of what the Mormons call "apostasy" they do get a bit angry. The fact is that for the Mormon anything that isn't Moroni (never seen his name in the Bible never mind in Revelation!) is apostasy. Equally, I argue that what is presented through human guile and is not honest, if also fallible, needs a serious looking at.
By this do you mean that instead of us calling other Christian denominations apostasized, they in turn say that we have apostasized and become angry by it? I would agree.
Not an apostacy but a cult produced by a powerful deception. Sorry, an apostacy has to begin with the truth. Morminsm begins with a fraud.
I used this argument against Mormons many years ago. Again, of course I don't agree with you but I don't think that it would be worth me arguing with you! I respect your opinion.
Cool, I don't mind you believing in your religion and your church. I would not be being honest if I could say that its o.k but I respect your freedom of choice and the fact that you are willing to talk about it with me and others
quote:
It is our opinion of course, that the Book of Mormon was not written by one person but many - since we don't believe in dictation but translation. The Book of Mormon does make many references to the times - like the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem - and the many things and names that were present in Jerusalem at that time. Of course - we cannot justify archaeology by means of the new world, since it was for the Nephites a virgin land (this is disputable though.)
The book of Mormon, as I first said, was the work of fiction written by a Congregational minister during the evangelical revival of the mid-nineteenth century. So in that case it was the work of a single author. JS perpetrated the fraud of claiming Moroni's direction and the gold plates for translation. The book was already written and in his possession. He claims to be a prophet but a prophets work stands to examination. A false prophet does not say that men who dress in puritan clothing live on the moon and then, through later scientific disclosure is found to be wrong. You and I both know that Brigham Young later said that they too live on the Sun.
As for the bible - you have to rely upon the knowledge of the witnesses. A sceptic could easily acknowledge that Jesus Christ lived. But as for His resurrection, crucifixion, ascension... this is all testimony of the New Testament authors - which requires as much faith as believing that the Liahona in the Book of Mormon guided the Lehites to the promised land!
Scepticism is fine when given to the notions of faith claims of the Bible. Christ crucified is substantiated by none Christian historians of the time, Josephus and Celcus talk of it as fact. This is not arguable, Jesus who was called Christ was crucified around 33 C.E. The response of faith in his resurrection is my belief that those who have passed on the Bible text from source have done so with intergrity. That they were written by anyone other than Christian witnesses is not in dispute as it is with the BoM.
quote:
Overall let me tell you that you have given a very intelligent post. I can fully accept your post, as I think it has worth and you have supported your beliefs, unlike the many who just make observations without any logical thought whatsoever.
Thanks again, enjoyed responding to you. Glad that you have been able to accept that a case can be made! Also, wish you well and peace without measure in the life you choose.
[ 10. May 2005, 08:50: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Hey,
Well what I mean is, that everything we believe, or have believed we can justify by biblical means. On the other hand - everything you believe, and have believed, can also be based on biblical scripture. This is the sort of catch 22 that many people face when they find faith in God but don't know what religion to join! But I think, that you have a slant on religion, that is perfectly justified by the bible.
For example - I can state that an apostasy has occured, and that the gospel has been reinstituted on the Earth:
quote:
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
But in a similar way - you can choose to disprove our belief in the current restoration by showing how Joseph Smith was a false prophet:
quote:
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
I could write a book disagreeing with you - and you could write a book disagreeing with me.
I suppose the whole argument comes down to faith, and the witness one receives to their endeavours. I respect your witness, and all I ask is that the members of the board accept mine! Although I believe that I am a member of the true church of Jesus Christ, I have no arguments against other who believe that they are in the same. I think we should all move past this and just start focusing on real debate rather than carry on trying to disprove each others religion. As the scripture says:
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Ken,
I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not saying their is no evidence of Semites at all. I was saying there is no evidence of semites in Egypt in great quantities. The evidence indicates they were not in Egypt but elsewhere. On that we can agree.
Historians,
I personally see the works of the bible as having a huge mythological/fictional component. I do understand the meaning and use of the term "Myth" when it comes to religious texts. Others, with a less nuanced, yet possibly justifiable view might use the word "Lies" instead of "Myths". To them, the bible is full of lies which taint the factuality of the truths that you see when you read it. They might assert that a book that is so full of lies that cannot be discerned from Truths is no better or worse than a book such as the Book of Mormon. They might see it as "The best way to sell a lie is to mix it with bunch of truths".
They might see Mormons and Christians as one side of the same coin from the perspective that they have their individual truths and lies that they hold dear. Same smell. Different Taste.
Faith really isn't historically, rationally, and certainly not scientifically measurable, nor accurate. Faith is faith. The lies that you hold dear are no more precious than the lies that they hold dear.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Plaintif Cry, PLEASE, learn to use the codes! I can't tell at all which parts of your post are yours and which are EM's.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Ken,
I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not saying their is no evidence of Semites at all. I was saying there is no evidence of semites in Egypt in great quantities. The evidence indicates they were not in Egypt but elsewhere. On that we can agree.
Historians,
I personally see the works of the bible as having a huge mythological/fictional component. I do understand the meaning and use of the term "Myth" when it comes to religious texts. Others, with a less nuanced, yet possibly justifiable view might use the word "Lies" instead of "Myths". To them, the bible is full of lies which taint the factuality of the truths that you see when you read it. They might assert that a book that is so full of lies that cannot be discerned from Truths is no better or worse than a book such as the Book of Mormon. They might see it as "The best way to sell a lie is to mix it with bunch of truths".
They might see Mormons and Christians as one side of the same coin from the perspective that they have their individual truths and lies that they hold dear. Same smell. Different Taste.
Faith really isn't historically, rationally, and certainly not scientifically measurable, nor accurate. Faith is faith. The lies that you hold dear are no more precious than the lies that they hold dear.
Well put Mad Geo. That sort of correlates to my above post in a more precise way of speaking!
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
the thing is, theres two different things being disscussed here. the second is, the veracity of the _content_ of two documents. the first, however, and most imortant, is the historical existance of two documents.
now in the case of bible, there is no doubt that the documents are ancient. thats not a matter of faith, its a matter of fact. furthermore, there is also no doubt that many of the things, places, and people were real. there was, and still is, a people called the jews, there was a people called the samaritans, there still is a city named jerusalem, a city named rome, a town called bethlehem. there was a ceaser augustus, a herod the great, a herod antipas, and even recently theres been some evidence discovered that pontius pilote existed as well. these things are matters of historical record, not faith. the only faith issues come from the question of interactions between these things, so to speak. did the isrealites exodus from egypt? we don't know, but we know there were isrealites and egyptians.
however, with the book of mormon, we don't even know that the documents existed in antiquity. the very existance of them is a matter of faith. there is no historical evidence for the peoples and places it describes, they also must be taken as a matter of faith. and of course since there is no historical evidence that those peolples and places existed, any events involving them must also be an issue of faith.
thats a hell of a lot to take on faith.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I live in a community where Mormons are the dominant religious and cultural group, and have a lot of Mormons among my colleagues as well as my clients (not among my social circle really--they don't tend to socialize much outside the church). They are, most of them, intelligent and reasonable people, and there are skeptics among them, like one who said to me, "It's a great way to live, but the stuff they want you to believe is horseshit." And then there was the Mormon banker, who remarked to his non-Mormon attorney (who is an acquaintance of mine), "If Joseph Smith or Brigham Young came to me for a loan, I'd have to turn them down--there's just too much shady stuff in their histories." Mormons as a group aren't are no stupider than any one else, any more than are inerrantist Christians who insist on the literal truth of the OT regardless of the findings of archaeology, etc. And the Bible (especially the OT) has an advantage over the BoM in being written by our old friend Anonymous--you can't question the veracity of the author on personal grounds if you don't know his biography.
[Slight tangent: I picked up a book at the local library Believing History: Latter-Day Saint Essays by Richard L. Bushman%
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
[For some reason, most of my post got lost--apologies for the duplication]
I live in a community where Mormons are the dominant religious and cultural group, and have a lot of Mormons among my colleagues as well as my clients (not among my social circle really--they don't tend to socialize much outside the church). They are, most of them, intelligent and reasonable people, and there are skeptics among them, like one who said to me, "It's a great way to live, but the stuff they want you to believe is horseshit." And then there was the Mormon banker, who remarked to his non-Mormon attorney (who is an acquaintance of mine), "If Joseph Smith or Brigham Young came to me for a loan, I'd have to turn them down--there's just too much shady stuff in their histories." Mormons as a group are no stupider than any one else, any more than are inerrantist Christians who insist on the literal truth of the OT regardless of the findings of archaeology, etc. And the Bible (especially the OT) has an advantage over the BoM in being written by our old friend Anonymous--you can't question the veracity of the author on personal grounds if you don't know his biography.
[Slight tangent: I picked up a book at the local library Believing History: Latter-Day Saint Essays by Richard L. Bushman, a Mormon historian with a Ph.D. from Harvard, who has taught at Columbia and Boston U., and who is now at Brigham Young U. I was interested to see what a professional historian would have to offer in the way of a defense of the the BoM. Since the book is published by Columbia University Press, I had hopes of at least a coherent argument. Unfortunately, it was apparently written for a Mormon audience, and there was only a minimal nod to the credibility problem, which Bushman deals with by saying, in effect, "I used to worry about that, but since I discovered postmodernism, I realized that it's not necessary to make a big deal about evidence--if you start by assuming that Joseph Smith was a prophet and telling the truth, the rest falls into place."
Now, as a postmodernist of sorts, I get annoyed enough when I see that sort of parody of postmodernism coming from its opponents--seeing it come from someone who claims to be using it in a scholarly endeavor is infuriating. Anyway, his basic method is to assume that the BoM and everything else Joseph Smith ever stated is accurate, and then to reconcile any apparent contradictions by filling what must have (or at least might have) happened to make the whole thing work. It's not unlike the method used by those who try to reconstruct the life of Sherlock Holmes by making deductions from clues in Conan Doyle.]
There is a key difference between the Bible and the BoM, however. For most Christians, Christianity does not stand or fall on the detailed accuracy of the history recounted in the Bible. If it could be shown that Jesus never existed, or was never resurrected, that might take it down, but short of that Christianity can tolerate a lot of myth, misunderstanding, scribal error, propaganda, and even forgery, simply because the Bible is the product of a community, with its roots in oral tradition (the same goes for Judaism, of course). If it were shown that Buddha never existed, it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference to most Buddhists--it wouldn't make the Four Noble Truths into lies. If the BoM is a hoax, it means that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, not a prophet, and that means the whole religion is without foundation. For that reason the authenticity of the document itself is of primary importance in a way that is quite distinct from the accuracy of the content. The relevance of the inaccuracy of the content is that it casts doubt on the authenticity of the document.
Timothy
[ 09. May 2005, 20:26: Message edited by: Timothy the Obscure ]
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
...thats a hell of a lot to take on faith.
What was it that Guy said? Oh yes, something about the faith of a mustard seed moving mountains?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not saying their is no evidence of Semites at all. I was saying there is no evidence of semites in Egypt in great quantities. The evidence indicates they were not in Egypt but elsewhere. On that we can agree. ...
I'm currently taking an OT survey course through a seminary, and the Exodus is -- not surprisingly -- one of the topics we covered. No, there's no historical evidence for the Exodus as reported in the Bible. But there were indeed Semites (Habiru and others) in Egypt. That part is in the Egyptian record.
What seems most probable, according to a lot of recent thinking, is that there was a small group of Egyptian slaves who DID depart a la the Exodus. They worked their way to the Canaanite highlands, where there were already a fair number of folks who didn't care for the dictatorial rule of the city-states, and had taken themselves up to turf where war chariots didn't work. Recent developments in metallurgy meant that the highlands could now be cultivated, making the move feasible. The various groups (and most of the Israelites seem to have been in fact Canaanite in origin, judging by pottery and whatnot) then adopted the Exodus story as their own. There does seem to be a kernal of literal truth in there.
It makes sense to me; your mileage may differ.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'm currently taking an OT survey course through a seminary, and the Exodus is -- not surprisingly -- one of the topics we covered. No, there's no historical evidence for the Exodus as reported in the Bible. But there were indeed Semites (Habiru and others) in Egypt. That part is in the Egyptian record.
What seems most probable, according to a lot of recent thinking, is that there was a small group of Egyptian slaves who DID depart a la the Exodus. They worked their way to the Canaanite highlands, where there were already a fair number of folks who didn't care for the dictatorial rule of the city-states, and had taken themselves up to turf where war chariots didn't work. Recent developments in metallurgy meant that the highlands could now be cultivated, making the move feasible. The various groups (and most of the Israelites seem to have been in fact Canaanite in origin, judging by pottery and whatnot) then adopted the Exodus story as their own. There does seem to be a kernal of literal truth in there.
It makes sense to me; your mileage may differ.
Sounds to me like the Christians, not the Archaeologists, are interpreting the Archaeology. You know, kinda like what they do with Geology and Genesis.
Theologians really shouldn't try to play with the Science. It almost always gets embarrassing for the Theologians.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
boppysbud
Shipmate
# 4588
|
Posted
Who is "Elder Moroni" really?
He keeps posting contradictory statements. I had already noticed him leaving the Hell Thread "Lies" because he is suppoesed to be a Missionary who normally range in age from 19 to 21 or so, and his Mission President would have his hide for revealing Temple Secrets.
In another post he said he is in his early 40s.
Now he informs us that his wife has just given birth. Missionaries are not as a rule married, and would not be permitted to serve missions with pregnant wives.
Moroni get your story(ies) straight. Even if I were inclined to beleive in Mormonism the dishonesty in your varying stories is a huge turn-off to me.
--------------------
this space left intentionally blank
Posts: 255 | From: High Desert, West Texas, USA | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Boppysbud earns a Sunday school silver medal in form criticism. If, however, s/he had suggested that the Elder Moroni text was a conflation of two distinct prophetic texts by two different authors (the Elderist and the Post-Missiological Figure), outlining a common salvation history mythos while containing superficial contradictions, we would give him a gold medal and an MDiv.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ooh, ooh, may I play?
I distinctly remember a post which included the phrase, "When our children were little,..."
This suggests to me that we have a multiple source text, possibly redacted by an LDS author, but then differently interpreted by the Ship community, in such a way that the center cannot hold, and free play escalates to the point that a potential shipmate is marginalized. Assuming for the moment that he/she/they are actual, and not an authorial construct intended to inspire confidence....
Oops, my bad. I just mentioned "intention." I'm out of the game, revealed as an essentialist, and I repent me in sackcloth and ashes.
Your round.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Theologians really shouldn't try to play with the Science. It almost always gets embarrassing for the Theologians.
Indeed? Many of the Theologians who teach seminary have begun with first degrees + in the sciences. I am shocked at your exclusivity (well maybe surprised). The world view of the scientist is often as theoretical and philosophical as the theologian. A matter of ideology formed through an interpretation of the world from evidence that is open to debate (or else where would different schools in the scientific disciplines come from). As in the matter of discussion of the various religious perceptions of the world to exclude from discussion because of difference/disagreement is often the sign of a narrowness of mind brought about by a case closed. How arrogant a view to think that science holds the factual answers. I always thought that there should be variables that make the debate interesting. The presumption that all there is in the universe is that which we can quantify exactly (empiricism) is an assumption and not a fact. IMHO.
[ 10. May 2005, 08:42: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
There is a key difference between the Bible and the BoM, however. For most Christians, Christianity does not stand or fall on the detailed accuracy of the history recounted in the Bible. If it could be shown that Jesus never existed, or was never resurrected, that might take it down, but short of that Christianity can tolerate a lot of myth, misunderstanding, scribal error, propaganda, and even forgery, simply because the Bible is the product of a community, with its roots in oral tradition (the same goes for Judaism, of course). If it were shown that Buddha never existed, it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference to most Buddhists--it wouldn't make the Four Noble Truths into lies. If the BoM is a hoax, it means that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, not a prophet, and that means the whole religion is without foundation. For that reason the authenticity of the document itself is of primary importance in a way that is quite distinct from the accuracy of the content. The relevance of the inaccuracy of the content is that it casts doubt on the authenticity of the document.
Timothy
Yes and Yes again, just my point. My goodness thanks be to God. Someone who is living up close and personal with LDS but sees the light. Hallelujah. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Well what I mean is, that everything we believe, or have believed we can justify by biblical means. On the other hand - everything you believe, and have believed, can also be based on biblical scripture.
I am not so sure that a hermanutical argument ever really carries water when the traditions and doctrine of a church take precedent over the bible. The book then becomes the tool by which to justify faith rather than one by which to explore it! I am a product of the culture of church and my encultured hermanutic as much as the faith I have in the word of God. However, the LDS dictates the interpretation of the Bible by adding another, and in my opinion flawed, text to its teaching. The Bible has a great many bumps and edges that are open to multiple debate, no doubt. Modern interpretation does hold out many possible potholes in the road. That is where the Christian depends on the good God of Grace (I am sure that you would argue so for Mormon too!). But read Timothy's response above. If the text has a fraudulent purpose its credibility is shot.
quote:
I suppose the whole argument comes down to faith, and the witness one receives to their endeavours. I respect your witness, and all I ask is that the members of the board accept mine! Although I believe that I am a member of the true church of Jesus Christ, I have no arguments against other who believe that they are in the same. I think we should all move past this and just start focusing on real debate rather than carry on trying to disprove each others religion.
EM God bless you! I do accept your faith but I do not believe that it embodies the good news of Jesus Christ. Elements of it are certainly expressions of the gospel but the nature of the organ (Josephe Smith's LDS) in which it is contained leaks dreadfully. I am not judging any person who puts their faith in Jesus Christ who died for the whole of humanity not trying to limit the grace of God! I am happy for you to say to me that Christ is your saviour and not seek to dissuade you of the validity of that claim. What I do object strongly too is a "Church" that puts the emphasis on conforming to flawed doctrines from a disreputable character (I know he is your prophet but there is lots to say he was a charlatan!). An organisation that claims exlusive status as "The" church (I have the same problem with exclusivity in the "Christian" Church too!). So, my friend, I do not seek to persecute or wish you ill. What I do wish you is all the grace of God and the reality of the freedom of the Holy Spirit to see Christ outside of the religious institution in which you believe. See Jesus outside of the doctrines of exalted manhood and extra-terrestrial plants and gods. Realise Jesus as the God/Man who gives life through his death and resurrection. Believe with simplicity that we are not bound to the religious ordinance of an earthly institution, but to Jesus (and putting his name ahead of your church does not make him head of your church).
[ 10. May 2005, 08:44: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ooh, ooh, may I play?
I distinctly remember a post which included the phrase, "When our children were little,..."
This suggests to me that we have a multiple source text, possibly redacted by an LDS author, but then differently interpreted by the Ship community, in such a way that the center cannot hold, and free play escalates to the point that a potential shipmate is marginalized. Assuming for the moment that he/she/they are actual, and not an authorial construct intended to inspire confidence....
Oops, my bad. I just mentioned "intention." I'm out of the game, revealed as an essentialist, and I repent me in sackcloth and ashes.
Your round.
Hosting
This and the round of juvenile posts leading up to it is an unacceptable series of personal attacks.
Any of you minded to continue the "game" should know three things:
- Personal attacks are reserved for Hell. They aren't tolerated here. What you have said amounts to calling Elder Moroni a sockpuppet. If you have tangible evidence that someone may be a sockpuppet then PM an Admin or a Purgatory Host for action - don't talk about it on a thread
- My attitude (stated elsewhere but repeated here for the hard of understanding): I disagree with what Elder Moroni believes in, but I accept his sincerity. He has a right to have his views debated in a reasonable and courteous manner. Consider me as the enforcer and defender of that right.
- Elder Moroni says goodbye
Short form: Stop it. Now.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mormon Boy
Shipmate
# 9409
|
Posted
Don't fret, you still have me to kick around. And I am not bound by Church ownership of my Computer or any other restricions on my internet usage (other than time). It has taken me some time to catch up on this thread and read the posts but I have some responses and some questions of my own.
--------------------
For the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not
Posts: 139 | From: Charlotte NC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mormon Boy
Shipmate
# 9409
|
Posted
To answer a question asked repeatedly, yes we believe in the Book of Mormon literally, completely, and 100%. We also believe the Bible literally completely and 100% with the caveat that there may be translation errors.
The eighth and ninth Articles of Faith state:
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
(They can be found in their entirety here: Articles of Faith)
If God says it, it is true. There are no two ways about it.
--------------------
For the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not
Posts: 139 | From: Charlotte NC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
Mormon Boy, thank you for sticking around. This whole recent business has been alternately disturbing and instructive. I, for one, appreciate your input.
quote:
Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
If God says it, it is true. There are no two ways about it.
This, ISTM, is the very heart of the matter. The LDS believes that the BoM is, in fact, God's Word. Mainstream Christians do not.
I don't see either side changing their minds about this any time in the forseeable future.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
Mormon Boy, thank you for sticking around. This whole recent business has been alternately disturbing and instructive. I, for one, appreciate your input.
Amen, and well said Campbellite.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mormon Boy
Shipmate
# 9409
|
Posted
You are welcome for me sticking around ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I have a question, we have been accused of violating the warning against adding to or taking away from the Gospel because of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation. Yet I see post after post on this site where people say things like, "Well I just discount the first 12 chapters of Genesis." or "I don't think the Exodus really happened the way it says in the Bible, if at all." or (most unfathomable to me) "It wasn't really a virgin birth" It seems to me that picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that are palatable to you is at least as much a violation of that admonition as making up a book and claiming it is new scripture.
I know that some of the things I mentioned are debated in this and other forums, however it seems to me that when discussing the Book of Mormon, we are whackos that added to the Bible and will be removed from the Book of Life, but if you decide that anything you don't like or understand in the Bible is literary instead of factual then you are a progressive. What gives?
--------------------
For the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not
Posts: 139 | From: Charlotte NC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
I have a question, we have been accused of violating the warning against adding to or taking away from the Gospel because of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation.
I know that some of the things I mentioned are debated in this and other forums, however it seems to me that when discussing the Book of Mormon, we are whackos that added to the Bible and will be removed from the Book of Life, but if you decide that anything you don't like or understand in the Bible is literary instead of factual then you are a progressive. What gives?
Interesting about the quote at the end of Revelation. Written long before the canon was formed, it literally only applies to Revelation itself.
Similar warning was given by Moses. Yet neither Christians or Jews limit themselves to the Mosaic law:
quote:
Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."
I think the meaning is that we are not to change it, or add our own ideas to it. The rest of the OT and NT, however, are neither changes nor our own ideas, but are the consistent revelation of God.
Lots of people here have their own ideas about what to believe or not believe. Every single Christian organization, however, officially believes certain basic things.
The LDS, however, are seen as officially disbelieving certain core Christian principles. They are therefore seen as violating Moses and John's warning.
In other words, it is one thing to be an apostate Christian individual. It is another to be an apostate Christian organization.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mormon Boy
Shipmate
# 9409
|
Posted
Freddy said:
quote:
Lots of people here have their own ideas about what to believe or not believe. Every single Christian organization, however, officially believes certain basic things.
What are those things that you are all in agreement on? I have been told that for a long time but haven't seen anything here or elsewhere that lists them, or anything to indicate that such a list exists.
--------------------
For the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not
Posts: 139 | From: Charlotte NC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
What are those things that you are all in agreement on? I have been told that for a long time but haven't seen anything here or elsewhere that lists them, or anything to indicate that such a list exists.
The List
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
If God says it, it is true. There are no two ways about it.
This, ISTM, is the very heart of the matter. The LDS believes that the BoM is, in fact, God's Word. Mainstream Christians do not.
I don't see either side changing their minds about this any time in the forseeable future.
I read up a bit on some of this stuff a while back. I gather that the theology of the BoM isn't that far removed from biblical theology (just quite far-fetched historically speaking).
Joseph Smith seems to have been coming from a fairly orthodox outlook when the BoM was written (as was discussed earlier on in the Trinity thread - the BoM does apparently deny the whole multiple gods thing). The more 'unusual' (shall we say) aspects of Mormon theology only start coming in as Smith moved onto books treated as 'canonical' by the LDS church - the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants.
I gather that a lot of Evangelical LDS-Watchers have felt that it would be a sign of progress if the LDS church were to stick with the Bible and the BoM, and leave the other stuff behind.
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
