Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm not taunting god, I'm taunting you. Hopefully you recognize the difference.

I am just representing God, not myself.

Troll

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred
He and you since your are backing him are both complaining about stuff that WAS SAID to the fundamentalist types. Why is this so difficult for you and he to comprehend?

Maybe its because you brought it up in your first or second post and continued to bring it up.

[QUOTE] Its truly amazing to me how people get something wrong in their head like this and won't let go. I am not an Atheist and that is exactly what are saying I am in this paragraph. [QUOTE]

I never would have guessed it

Perhaps you also are under the impression that if there is a god it must be a christian god therefor I must be an atheist for saying that I have disproved that Fundamentalist god.

Give up this odd version of me you have in your head please. Its getting really tiresome to see the exact thing time after time no matter how many times I point out that its wrong.

I stand corrected on my assumptions.

Faith does not equal proof, in the pudding or otherwise.

I never said it did

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Troll

I am just representing God, not myself.

Troll

You're his lawyer or something?

[Grandpa Troll]

Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by ckweb


Troll: "Heart" knowledge does not exempt one from pursuing "Head" knowledge. I know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Read how the citizens of Berea responded to Paul when he spoke to them as it is recorded in Acts. Mark Noll in his book, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," rightly observed that Evangelicals have abdicated the mind when clearly God gave us one to employ. You should not ridicule those who would engage in reasoned discussion nor should you imply their condemnation. God alone saves and God alone condemns!

You should also not ridicule your Catholic brothers with veiled criticisms of their theology. If you want to raise objections with their theology, you should do so in a meaningful way. We all see as if through glass dimly and your theology (even from your short post) has flaws just as Catholic theology does.

I sincerely apologize for not clarifying myself. I was referrring to "Head" knowledge - that being Non-Christian beliefs and "Heart" knowledge-the True belief in One's heart That Jesus Died for our Sinfulness.

You say you are a Christian? I am glad to hear this. God does condemn, through Jesus Christ and God alone saves, Through Jesus Christ. And I am doing this in a meaningful way. You are indeed correct, I have many flaws, for this I do apologize. God, in and through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit does not however. I thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to point my many flaws out I have not ridiculed anyone, only stated a simple fact, If you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, you go to Heaven, If you have "Head" knowledge of Science Facts and Historic relevance and "Conjectures" disputing those beliefs you will go to Hell. I did not say that if you use your head to think you are wrong. I apologize for speaking in a manner you could not understand, I am sorry! Forgive me.

Troll

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ckweb
Though they often deny it, the Mormons are essentially polytheistic, believing in three gods. Ergo, they do not believe in the Trinity. Ergo, . . . oh you get the drift!!

Christ is not considered a God (yet), and neither is the Holy Ghost. Mormons would agree that they are polytheistic, though it might not be the right term exactly. It is a very basic part of Mormon doctrine that God is not the only god. Rather only God is respected (worshipped isn't quite the right term), as he is viewed as our spiritual father. He was once the spirit child of another God, and eventually attained perfection. Anyone who attains this perfection becomes a God.

I won't go into too much detail, that's the general gist of it. The definition of God is different than in other Christian sects. It's still a definition that you can twist the Bible to fit, and so is viewed as the same God (by Mormons), just with a different spin.

Mormonism is wacked on so many levels it's not even funny. It is really a testament to the power of propaganda that Mormonism maintains its parishioners.

Perhaps you can understand that this is the viewpoint that some take of Christianity. Take out the 'not even funny' part and tone down 'wacked', and it would be close to how I feel about religion in general.

It's easy to say a group is wrong because they believe differently. It's hard to apply the same reasoning to your own beliefs from another's standpoint.

But, really, Mormonism is such a fraud that it should be illegal. Its adherents need to be protected from their own gullibility.

The same could be said about most religions/sects (any that you don't particularly agree with). Mormons haven't had a spotless record (far from it), but so far they haven't accounted for any large scale losses of life at least, and seem to be over that stage of developement completely. Given enough time maybe they can match the exploits of some of their more ancient counterparts though.

The shots against Mormons are just easier because their 'divine' inspirations are contemperary, not clouded by centuries or millenia. The inconsistancies are easier to show proof of, as alternative contemperary sources are much more prevalent.

The Lost Tribe of Dan?

I forget the names of all the tribes. I would agree that they have different takes on several Biblical issues. Until the lost tribes are found though...

One thing to consider is that in the BoM, at the time Nephi and his family left Jerusalem, they stole (pretty shady stuff going on there) some historical text to take with them. These were brass plates, which two angels from God supposedly told them they needed to take along to preserve their history.

I have no idea what LDS doctrine is on this point, but if the records on those plates weren't perfect, or perfectly preserved, then the BoM plates would have had a slightly different record too.

Jesus Christ appears to a tribe of non-existent North American Indians who sport weaponry and tools beyond their scientific age of advancement?

You are using scientific claims to disprove a religious text, sound familiar? The Book of Mormon does give explainations as to why evidence of these people are not found, and how they got there. Not very likely explainations IMO, but if taken as fact they would account for why there isn't any physical evidence.

The peoples in the BoM are migrants from Israel, and another migration from after the time of Babel. God inspired each group to build ships capable of crossing the Atlantic, though it isn't specific if they crossed that way or went east instead.

By the end, God caused cities and their wealth to be swallowed up by the earth because they were wicked, the Nephites were completely wiped out (other than 3 or possibly 4 exceptions) by a more barbaric and primitive people, the Lamanites (both derived from the latter crossing). The depiction of the Lamanites is roughly equivalent of the Aztec or other more developed Native American civilizations.

Isn't there a quote in the Bible where Jesus talks about other flocks he has to attend to? I can't remember the passage, but Mormons use this to corroborate the BoM's story that Jesus appeared on the American continent.

Joseph Smith translates Golden Plates and then loses them? All the signees of the certificate of authenticity recant?

They were supposedly taken by the angel Moroni, not lost. It is a point where belief is required, as proof isn't given. A common theme within religions of all sorts.

The second part is pretty damning, but can be attributed to the 'evil' nature of man. Always an easy scapegoat; God is perfect, religion isn't because men screw it up. I don't think that all of them recanted either, there were 2 groups of witnesses. Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum (sp?) was killed with him in jail and was one of the witnesses. I'm pretty sure he never recanted.

I'd have to read up on the others, it has been a while.

The Book of Mormon has undergone amazing levels of editorial revision?

Do you claim that the Bible and stories contained were never revised? As many of the passages were originally from oral tradition, I find it hard to believe that they could have survived from conception to modern day without any changes.

I'm not sure what you mean by amazing levels of revision, but I've seen BoM's from as early as 1850 which are just about word for word with the current edition. The main differences are in the cross references always listed with the text nowdays, it wasn't there in the first editions. I haven't seen any BoM's with glaring changes, I'm sure some exist though. As in just about any point, this could be attributed to evil and corruption in man. It's only been 170 years, and to make substantiated claims about whether Joseph Smith was the author of this version or that version would be hard to prove.

The idea that the BoM was a perfect translation is false of course. Akin to fundamentalist claims that the Bible is literal truth.

Talk about racist doctrines?

They've outgrown that. I can't think of any racist institution left within the LDS church. Allowing those of african descent to hold the priestood came about in the 70's I think. I'm sure there are Mormons who still harbor racist ideas, but it isn't sanctioned by the LDS church.

Again though, it's an argument that applies to the history of Christianity and religion in general.

There are beyond problems here!!

I don't dispute that. From my perspective, they are the same problems that pop up in just about every religion.

I found it interesting that you seem to apply some of the same refutation techniques (judging a spiritual text about the supernatural by scientific methods) towards the BoM and Mormons as Ethelred does towards the Bible and Christians.

If I have mischaracterized your statements I apologize in advance, just trying to butt into the conversation a little.

[Aeson]

Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by Troll
If you have "Head" knowledge of Science Facts and Historic relevance and "Conjectures" disputing those beliefs you will go to Hell. I did not say that if you use your head to think you are wrong.

It's comforting to know that while not necessarily wrong, I'm going to hell.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ckweb

You bet!

But, really, Mormonism is such a fraud that it should be illegal. Its adherents need to be protected from their own gullibility.

The Lost Tribe of Dan?

Jesus Christ appears to a tribe of non-existent North American Indians who sport weaponry and tools beyond their scientific age of advancement?

Joseph Smith translates Golden Plates and then loses them? All the signees of the certificate of authenticity recant?

The Book of Mormon has undergone amazing levels of editorial revision?

Talk about racist doctrines?

There are beyond problems here!!

This is from your first post

Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science. The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones. Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written.

You refute the arguments that deny the scientific accuracy of the bible by asserting that it must be judged as a theological (literary) text without taking into account science as a basis for judging its accuracy or significance.

Then you deride other theological texts using the same scientific arguments that you assert cant be used to judge the bible.

How typical.

[ckweb]

Woah! Am I in a bit of hot water over the Mormon thing? Allegedly criticizing them in the way that I disclaimed as inappropriate criticism for my religious views. . . except, you were not reading my posts carefully enough. Speaking about the Bible, I wrote:

Originally Posted by ckweb
It is certainly an artifact of history and in that capacity reveals something of the culture and people who wrote it as well as the cultures and peoples that preserved it. The historical-scientific approaches can be applied to it in that capacity, most certainly. But, scientific method can't be applied as means to interpret the text itself.

I welcome historical-scientific approaches of the biblical text that pertain to its cultural authenticity. My statement against the Mormons was that the Book of Mormon totally lacks cultural authenticity because not only do we have no evidence of the Indian tribes mentioned in their Book, the weapons and tools used by them are anachronisms. If they, or you, would like to explain how these things can be accounted for while still maintaining the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I will gladly recant my over-the-top criticisms of that religion.

Yes. The Biblical text has undergone revisions prior to its canonization. The Book of Mormon has undergone revisions since its canonization.

As for many of the other problems, I'll leave it to ex-Mormons to challenge their own ex-Faith. You can read some of the incredibly damning (albeit sometimes very inflammatory) things they have to say:

http://www.exmormon.org/goodsite.htm

("Thinking of Joining Mormonism?" is a good article to start with to get just a sense of the problems.)

BTW, Aeson, I really don't care if you think I'm a quack. My only point in this thread with Ethelred is that you can't prove I'm one because the Bible, when understood in historical context and using the tools of academic inquiry, can hold up remarkably well under the pressure. If you want to liken me to Mormons, I also don't mind but it reflects your ignorance not mine. There are some things in this world that are just more plausible than others. Mormonism is one of the most implausible religious traditions on the face of the earth. But, as I've said, I'm willing to recant my over the top criticisms if you want to prove to me the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon (and actually I should have added, their untenable interpretations of the biblical text).

[ckweb]

The differences between Mormonism and my religious tradition are numerous. My religious tradition does not include a mechanism to prevent me from challenging its doctrines. In fact, I went to a denominational school and was consistently free to do just that. I even wrote an essay challenging the exegetical necessity of the virginal conception in the book of Matthew:

http://anduril.ca/PDFs/A%20Matter%20of%20Conception.pdf

I submit to the authority of my church willingly and am free to follow my conscience on all matters of faith. Mormons are not.

Local churches and their larger denominations are open with their finances. In fact, if and when I join another local church, I will be able to vote on the budget to decide how and where my tithes are spent.

I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, an essentially secular professional society that puts the Bible under close and rigourous academic scrutiny. The Society of Biblical Literature is an international organization that brings together all scholars in the field of biblical studies. Few Mormons are members of this organization and finding an audience for their extremely outlandish perspectives within such a society is next to impossible. Conversely, members of my community of faith are not only given an audience but are respected for the academic value of their insights and conclusions. I will be presenting a paper at this society in November 2002 and I look forward to the criticisms and insight that I will receive from the excellent scholars that will be in attendance.

In sum, my religious tradition is characterized by openness and rigorous pursuit of the truth through the application of academic discipline. Mormonism on the other hand is characterized by rigid adherence to the authority of the LDS hierarchy and a virtually unquestioned commitment to its doctrines. As a result, I feel confident in declaring that my religious tradition is infinitely more plausible than Mormonism.

[ckweb]

Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by Troll


I sincerely apologize for not clarifying myself. I was referrring to "Head" knowledge - that being Non-Christian beliefs and "Heart" knowledge-the True belief in One's heart That Jesus Died for our Sinfulness.

You say you are a Christian? I am glad to hear this. God does condemn, through Jesus Christ and God alone saves, Through Jesus Christ. And I am doing this in a meaningful way. You are indeed correct, I have many flaws, for this I do apologize. God, in and through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit does not however. I thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to point my many flaws out I have not ridiculed anyone, only stated a simple fact, If you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, you go to Heaven, If you have "Head" knowledge of Science Facts and Historic relevance and "Conjectures" disputing those beliefs you will go to Hell. I did not say that if you use your head to think you are wrong. I apologize for speaking in a manner you could not understand, I am sorry! Forgive me.

Troll

Why do you equate "Head" knowledge with "Non-Christian beliefs"? I don't recall Jesus meeting the wise man and saying, if you have "Head" knowledge it is harder for you to enter the kingdom of heaven (as he did of those who possess wealth). Possessing "Head" knowledge of any kind does not invalidate "Heart" knowledge. If you think it does, I challenge you to prove this from Scripture.

"But in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." (1 Pet 3:15).

Troll, I beg to differ that you are making your statements in a meaningful way and if you paid attention to your replies, you would see why. You simply succeeded in coming into this forum to offend or anger those who do not believe what you believe. Alternatively, you could have entered into profitable discussion on the relevancy of your beliefs to daily life. How often did Jesus say, "You will go to Hell!" If Jesus rarely used such a tactic, and he had the authority to use this statement (!), how much more should you not use it!

BTW, you did ridicule Catholic theology by writing:

Originally Posted by Troll

Accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior or deny him and spend eternity in Hell. Not a halfway house for good behavior or self worth as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed, but simple childlike faith in the One whom died for the ransom of our Sinfulness.

You denigrated the doctrine of purgatory but comparing it to "a halfway house for good behaviour." You also made a sleight of hand cut at their works theology when you wrote "as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed." You then declared the primacy of your own view that Christ's death was a ransom when in fact there are many other views on the nature and purpose of his crucifixition that are as if not more biblically sound than your "ransom" view.

I'm not the one you should be asking forgiveness from. If anyone, you should ask the non-Christians on this board for forgiveness. They are the ones that are quite obviously upset and perturbed by your statements and the similar statements of members of your tradition. You have not offended me, only concerned me.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ckweb
I welcome historical-scientific approaches of the biblical text that pertain to its cultural authenticity. My statement against the Mormons was that the Book of Mormon totally lacks cultural authenticity because not only do we have no evidence of the Indian tribes mentioned in their Book, the weapons and tools used by them are anachronisms. If they, or you, would like to explain how these things can be accounted for while still maintaining the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I will gladly recant my over-the-top criticisms of that religion.

Have you read the BoM? Or at least read my quick explaination as to how the Nephites and Lamanites were supposed to have come to the new world? These were not Indians in the context of a prehistoric migration from Asia (even if they may have passed that way), but a migration of Hebrews. As such they would have had a bronze age technological level at least, and some familiarity with Iron was suggested in the text, along with certain constructions by divine insights.

The physical evidence of their habitation here (of the advanced Nephite faction) was destroyed by the hand of God. A very convenient circumstance. Through LDS doctrine, there should be little or no direct physical evidence of their habitation here in the Americas.

As for the weapons and tools being anachronisms, you are judging a seperate people, advancing (and in some cases regressing) with no contact with the outside world, and in a different environment. The main migration was a small group, and while they could preserve some of the cultural and technical knowlege, some would most likely be lost as well. Also there was divine inspiration attributed to some constructions, which would allow for seemingly large jumps in technology if true.

Yes. The Biblical text has undergone revisions prior to its canonization. The Book of Mormon has undergone revisions since its canonization.

I'm not sure what your point is here. On one hand you have a non-divine text which becomes divine? On the other you have a divine text which has changed over time.

If you could point me to a version of the BoM with these major revisions it would be helpful. As I stated before, I've seen BoM's from 1850 (1830 being when Joseph Smith founded the LDS church) with little revision outside of an addition of crossreferencing, the rest explained as typographical error fixes.

On the implication that divine inspiration cannot have reason to be changed over time, how would you explain the jump from the law of Moses to the law of Christ? How about certain Christian sects allowing for women to hold the priesthood, when they weren't before? How about the issue of slavery and how Christian ideas on the subject changed over time?

At one time or another all faiths undergo some doctrinal revisions. I don't see the significance of whether that doctrine was in writing or not.

BTW, Aeson, I really don't care if you think I'm a quack.

I never said you were. I made statements about my feelings on religion in general, not their members. The only reason for offering that opinion was to help depict how belief can vary widely depending on the viewpoint of the observer. As you stated, it's subjective.

My only point in this thread with Ethelred is that you can't prove I'm one because the Bible, when understood in historical context and using the tools of academic inquiry, can hold up remarkably well under the pressure.

I don't think Ethelred was trying to prove you were a quack previous to this thread. I'm not trying to either, I'm just interested in how you derived your opinions about Mormons, and if you apply the same logic towards the Bible.

If you want to liken me to Mormons, I also don't mind but it reflects your ignorance not mine.

I never tried to liken you to Mormons. I was likening you to Ethelred in some respects. I'd also like to point out that the comparison was of traits I think are complementary.

There are some things in this world that are just more plausible than others.

No doubt. Belief has different levels. You noted this earlier:

But, notwithstanding, I do not expect that most people would be persuaded by any evidence of this nature simply because the events are too manifestly unique and require too much of a person to accept them.

This issue, however, would radically change a person's worldview and people simply don't swap their worldview for another one on the basis of this type of evidence. It's insufficient and I completely understand that. I think the Fourth Gospel acknowledges this fact when it declares, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (Jn 20:29b).

Can't the same reasoning apply to the BoM? Insufficient (or even contrary) evidence which requires belief. Would not those with no support for their beliefs be blessed as well? Or is it only at some specific ratios of proof:belief that being blessed is activated?

Mormonism is one of the most implausible religious traditions on the face of the earth.

Plausible to some. I don't think it is, but some of the most intelligent people I've met do, some of the most ignorant too. I could say the same thing about any religion I'm familiar with, and even science (the part about smart/ignorant people). God in general is implausible, otherwise belief is not necessary. There can be no physical proof of God unless some account of God is first accepted as truthfully depicting God.

If you read the BoM you come to a passage at the end which explains the entire significance of the text (LDS doctrine).

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." (Moroni 10:3)

It really isn't an attempt to be historical, maybe not even culturally accurate, but a test of faith. I agree that there isn't as much evidence supporting the BoM as the Bible, and that there are contradictory sources even, but it doesn't ask to be judged that way. Fundamentalist Mormons are just as easy to refute as fundamentalist Christians, they try to prove God exists with a spiritual text, rather than allow the text to be proved by God, which is usually the purpose of the text. In the case of the BoM and LDS doctrine, this is the test. You read the BoM, pray about it, and God will manifest the truth of it unto you. The BoM by itself is not meant as a proof of anything, and thus can't be used to disprove anything.

But, as I've said, I'm willing to recant my over the top criticisms if you want to prove to me the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon (and actually I should have added, their untenable interpretations of the biblical text).

The interpretations of the biblical text are quite easy to explain. You accept revisions in the Bible before it was cannonized as stated previously right? Well the Bible wasn't connonized as Mormon scripture until after Joseph Smith recieved divine inspiration to help clear up some issues. The result is called the Joseph Smith translation, and he worked off of the King James version of the Bible. It isn't meant to be a perfect translation of what Hebrews wrote, but rather a (more?) perfect translation of what God wanted to be written. It assumes that the Hebrew Bible is flawed, that God inspired Joseph Smith, and offers that up as a belief. The assumption that the Bible is flawed is probably the root of why Mormons are less accepted as a Christian sect.

I'm still not sure if you've read the BoM or not, or various other LDS 'inspired' literature. If you are relying on ex-mormon accounts of LDS doctrine it would necessarily be anti-Mormon. Not the most objective sources are we. I am an ex-Mormon, I have read the BoM several times and tested the main precept in Moroni 10:3 each time. From a personal standpoint, this is the means of proving or disproving the text. It's the only way the LDS church advocates.

When dealing with any religion, there has to be some 'givens'. A believer can't just believe anything and everything they ever hear (at least they shouldn't). Some religions rely on different givens. Even in Christian sects there are variation on what is important to accept, and to judge one sect's beliefs with another sect's givens is unfair. The Mormon religion relies on the given that God will manifest truth unto those who ask. The only way to disprove the religion is to actually go through the process and not get a personal answer. Even then the claim is usually made that the inherent evil in man can cause a person to not be able to hear God's message, or to misinterpret it.

Your arguments about how Ethelred uses improper methods of proof against Christian texts applies to your methods of proof against Mormon texts.

I do agree in your assessment of the plausibility of the BoM and LDS doctrine. It's very unlikely.

[Grandpa Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by ckweb


Why do you equate "Head" knowledge with "Non-Christian beliefs"? I don't recall Jesus meeting the wise man and saying, if you have "Head" knowledge it is harder for you to enter the kingdom of heaven (as he did of those who possess wealth). Possessing "Head" knowledge of any kind does not invalidate "Heart" knowledge. If you think it does, I challenge you to prove this from Scripture.

"But in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." (1 Pet 3:15).

Troll, I beg to differ that you are making your statements in a meaningful way and if you paid attention to your replies, you would see why. You simply succeeded in coming into this forum to offend or anger those who do not believe what you believe. Alternatively, you could have entered into profitable discussion on the relevancy of your beliefs to daily life. How often did Jesus say, "You will go to Hell!" If Jesus rarely used such a tactic, and he had the authority to use this statement (!), how much more should you not use it!

BTW, you did ridicule Catholic theology by writing:



You denigrated the doctrine of purgatory but comparing it to "a halfway house for good behaviour." You also made a sleight of hand cut at their works theology when you wrote "as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed." You then declared the primacy of your own view that Christ's death was a ransom when in fact there are many other views on the nature and purpose of his crucifixition that are as if not more biblically sound than your "ransom" view.

I'm not the one you should be asking forgiveness from. If anyone, you should ask the non-Christians on this board for forgiveness. They are the ones that are quite obviously upset and perturbed by your statements and the similar statements of members of your tradition. You have not offended me, only concerned me.

I am sure glad that I am able to "offend" now, as opposed to you or anyone out here going to Heaven's gate, finding out the fact that you came sooooo close..but yet soooo far..from being accepted into Heaven. I say this to indeed bring attention to the fact that Jesus Christ did come to clarify and set things straight.

Ok..Gotta answer and respond to your putting words into my mouth, or forming opinions not expressed or believed by me. I DID NOT MAKE REFERENCE to Catholicism, or "Puragtory", I am sure hoping you get some thicker skin, you will need it come eternity in Hell, Fiery furnace, Gnashing of Teeth, unquenchable fire, yup...you are sure gonna need it.

I came to this forum to voice an opinion of mine, Facts..laid upon me by God, to give the straight Facts, Yes Jesus Christ did in most cases come forth with a Gentle Spirit, but he did otherwise hold account those whom despised him, mocked him, and mistreated his children!

Look, I have sit here,watched many people slander God, and Slander Eternity's Plan of Salvation, Slander Creation through God, and Slander the Trinity. I love you, Jesus Loves you, I came not to start pain without substanence, but bring the Truth which will set you free!

If this bothers you, i am sorry, for once I was too antagonistical, full of bitternes, mockery and guile,vile spatterings, attacking all whom I came in contact with! I am simply sharing that Jesus Died for our Sins, paid the price at Golgotha and was raied three days later, and after a short time, Ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.

As for asking Non-Christains for Forgiveness, I ask if I have offended you, outside of sharing the Gospel, please forgive me. If I offended you through the Gospel, count it a blessing that it happened here, and not at Judgement day!

In Jesus Name

Troll

[Ethelred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

I don't feel like doing any serious writing on this stuff today. Going to read the stuff though. May reply tommorow. However:

Originally posted by ckweb
You simply succeeded in coming into this forum to offend or anger those who do not believe what you believe.

I don't think Troll really managed to offend anyone. Unless it was you anyway. He is too amusing for that. I think he may even be aware of this. The only real question I had was wether he was serious.

It is so bloody hard to tell a satire from the real thing. I have seen sites that I was SURE were satire but no matter hard I tried I could not see a single giveaway except for how far over the top they were. Which isn't really a giveaway with sites like that.

The Amazingly hatefilled Jack Chick.

http://www.chick.com/

The NIV Bible is Satanic. Nice picture with the Pope and Satan.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/

The truly vile Surfin the net with Jesus site

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

This URL speaks for itself

http://www.demonbuster.com/

Someone here disagrees with God Bless America

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

I never saw this one before. Allegedly its for real.

Messiahcam

http://www.olivetree.org/

I hesitate to post this one but the concept cries out for it.

CADS - Christians and Domination/submission

A PRO Chistrian PRO B&D site.

http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ecads/

One site is a ringer. One and only one is parody.

Well think only one is. Hard to tell. I can't find the parody site that has no giveaways today.

I'm not the one you should be asking forgiveness from. If anyone, you should ask the non-Christians on this board for forgiveness. They are the ones that are quite obviously upset and perturbed by your statements and the similar statements of members of your tradition. You have not offended me, only concerned me.

I forgive him my son. Please forgive me for finding him amusing instead of annoying.

I am only doing lightweigtht stuff today anyway. My brain is fried and I my grammer and spelling is bad enough when at its best. I think anything serious would be too garbled for even me to figure just what I intended to say.

All mistakes in the above are purely unintentional. The only thing I do well on days like this is be funny. Sometimes unintentionally.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Aeson
Have you read the BoM? Or at least read my quick explaination as to how the Nephites and Lamanites were supposed to have come to the new world? These were not Indians in the context of a prehistoric migration from Asia (even if they may have passed that way), but a migration of Hebrews. As such they would have had a bronze age technological level at least, and some familiarity with Iron was suggested in the text, along with certain constructions by divine insights.

The physical evidence of their habitation here (of the advanced Nephite faction) was destroyed by the hand of God. A very convenient circumstance. Through LDS doctrine, there should be little or no direct physical evidence of their habitation here in the Americas.

As for the weapons and tools being anachronisms, you are judging a seperate people, advancing (and in some cases regressing) with no contact with the outside world, and in a different environment. The main migration was a small group, and while they could preserve some of the cultural and technical knowlege, some would most likely be lost as well. Also there was divine inspiration attributed to some constructions, which would allow for seemingly large jumps in technology if true.

I have only read portions of BoM and other LDS scriptures and I will readily concede that I do not have extensive knowledge of Mormonism. And so, in that respect, I rely upon their reception at professional societies and upon the claims they have made for the Hebrew Bible.

The migration of Hebrews, even with bronze age technology, does not account for some of the metallurgical advancements present in BoM. Also, I do not think I'm guilty of improper methodology in refuting the validity of the Mormon texts on this basis unless of course Mormons do not claim that the BoM is an authentic cultural artifact testifying to peoples that populated the Americas. This claim can be tested and has much like you could test the biblical claim that Hebrews lived in Palestine and established two kingdoms in that area. Also, you can confirm that the Bible speaks authentically about its time whereas I do not see that you can do so with BoM.

I was not aware that LDS claimed God destroyed all evidence of these peoples. This is convenient, as you say.

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not sure what your point is here. On one hand you have a non-divine text which becomes divine? On the other you have a divine text which has changed over time.

If you could point me to a version of the BoM with these major revisions it would be helpful. As I stated before, I've seen BoM's from 1850 (1830 being when Joseph Smith founded the LDS church) with little revision outside of an addition of crossreferencing, the rest explained as typographical error fixes.

On the implication that divine inspiration cannot have reason to be changed over time, how would you explain the jump from the law of Moses to the law of Christ? How about certain Christian sects allowing for women to hold the priesthood, when they weren't before? How about the issue of slavery and how Christian ideas on the subject changed over time?

At one time or another all faiths undergo some doctrinal revisions. I don't see the significance of whether that doctrine was in writing or not.

Doctrinal revision is quite different from revising the base text. Textual criticism, the science by which an ancient text is recovered and revised, is not under the control of Christians. Even the accurate translation of the text is not controlled by Christians. In the case of BoM, however, it is strictly controlled by the church, who (it is my understanding) has been free to make changes as they accord with changes in doctrine (i.e. changing "white" to read "pure"--I'm taking it this change was not based on any philogical grounds or a new understanding of the original as the originals are not around--so, on what authority was the change made? Newly received divine inspiration?). One approach seems infinitely more intellectually honest to me than the other.

If I am incorrect in my assertion that BoM has had drastic revisions, I concede on this point. My expertise into the various editions of the BoM is simply not sufficient enough. I will trust that you are accurate in your position.

Originally posted by Aeson
I never said you were. I made statements about my feelings on religion in general, not their members. The only reason for offering that opinion was to help depict how belief can vary widely depending on the viewpoint of the observer. As you stated, it's subjective.

I don't think Ethelred was trying to prove you were a quack previous to this thread. I'm not trying to either, I'm just interested in how you derived your opinions about Mormons, and if you apply the same logic towards the Bible.

I made the mistake of moving from general to specific. My mistake.

I think that I reflect critically and honestly on the Bible. I do not attempt to make it conform to my views nor do I claim for it anything it does not claim for itself. I am more than willing to be challenged by the text. I think my process of investigation is intellectually honest.

With respect to the Mormons, I am attempting to reflect critically and honestly on their claims and the claims of the BoM. As I stated above, if there is no claim for the cultural and historical authenticity of the BoM, then I have misunderstood them. But, if no claim of historical and cultural authenticity is made, aren't Mormons conceding that Joseph Smith made it up and Jesus did not actually appear on this continent? If so, what is the basis for their religious convictions? Is it based in the revelations of the Mormon prophets? And, don't the prophets often make contradictory statements? God changing inspiration is one thing; God constantly contradicting himself is quite another. Mormonism then seems to become more about faith in the prophets than it is about faith in God.

Originally posted by Aeson
I never tried to liken you to Mormons. I was likening you to Ethelred in some respects. I'd also like to point out that the comparison was of traits I think are complementary.

No doubt. Belief has different levels. You noted this earlier:

Can't the same reasoning apply to the BoM? Insufficient (or even contrary) evidence which requires belief. Would not those with no support for their beliefs be blessed as well? Or is it only at some specific ratios of proof:belief that being blessed is activated?

Plausible to some. I don't think it is, but some of the most intelligent people I've met do, some of the most ignorant too. I could say the same thing about any religion I'm familiar with, and even science (the part about smart/ignorant people). God in general is implausible, otherwise belief is not necessary. There can be no physical proof of God unless some account of God is first accepted as truthfully depicting God.

If you read the BoM you come to a passage at the end which explains the entire significance of the text (LDS doctrine).

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." (Moroni 10:3)

It really isn't an attempt to be historical, maybe not even culturally accurate, but a test of faith. I agree that there isn't as much evidence supporting the BoM as the Bible, and that there are contradictory sources even, but it doesn't ask to be judged that way. Fundamentalist Mormons are just as easy to refute as fundamentalist Christians, they try to prove God exists with a spiritual text, rather than allow the text to be proved by God, which is usually the purpose of the text. In the case of the BoM and LDS doctrine, this is the test. You read the BoM, pray about it, and God will manifest the truth of it unto you. The BoM by itself is not meant as a proof of anything, and thus can't be used to disprove anything.

My point is this: The common element of all religious traditions is that they require faith. Some religious traditions, however, are more plausible than others in the degree to which they require this faith.

Christianity really only requires one faith conviction, namely that the resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God and more specifically, validates the message Jesus came to bring. The resurrection itself, as I've said, has sufficient proof to meet a legal standard (not a scientific one, of course, because the physical evidence of the resurrected body is not available to test). Yet, I also stated that a legal standard is often not sufficient to convince people of the resurrection because the event is too manifestly unique. Moreover, even if they did accept the resurrection, they might still not possess the faith required to accept it means anything. But, nevertheless, the only important faith conviction Christianity requires of an individual is related to an event many people have testified concerning in the past and into the present.

Islam requires faith in the testimony of Mohammed that he was indeed visited by the angel Gabriel and given a message. There are no witnesses to support this claim. Your faith rests only on the claim of one man.

Mormonism requires much more faith on the part of its adherents. Moreover, the faith required is compounded by the presence of evidence that suggests Mormonism is a fraud perpetrated by some people of questionable character (i.e. Joseph Smith). If I read you correctly, a Mormon must have faith that God will reveal the truth of the BoM to him after that person places his faith in that text. Seems like a circular argument of the worst kind.

While the degree of faith may not be a reflection of the ultimate truthfulness of that religion, it does affect the degree to which a religion can be substantiated by external evidence and hence be more plausible.

Originally posted by Aeson
The interpretations of the biblical text are quite easy to explain. You accept revisions in the Bible before it was cannonized as stated previously right? Well the Bible wasn't connonized as Mormon scripture until after Joseph Smith recieved divine inspiration to help clear up some issues. The result is called the Joseph Smith translation, and he worked off of the King James version of the Bible. It isn't meant to be a perfect translation of what Hebrews wrote, but rather a (more?) perfect translation of what God wanted to be written. It assumes that the Hebrew Bible is flawed, that God inspired Joseph Smith, and offers that up as a belief. The assumption that the Bible is flawed is probably the root of why Mormons are less accepted as a Christian sect.

Here, as before, a Mormon is required to exercise a great deal of faith that Joseph Smith was indeed inspired to re-write an ancient cultural document.

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm still not sure if you've read the BoM or not, or various other LDS 'inspired' literature. If you are relying on ex-mormon accounts of LDS doctrine it would necessarily be anti-Mormon. Not the most objective sources are we. I am an ex-Mormon, I have read the BoM several times and tested the main precept in Moroni 10:3 each time. From a personal standpoint, this is the means of proving or disproving the text. It's the only way the LDS church advocates.

When dealing with any religion, there has to be some 'givens'. A believer can't just believe anything and everything they ever hear (at least they shouldn't). Some religions rely on different givens. Even in Christian sects there are variation on what is important to accept, and to judge one sect's beliefs with another sect's givens is unfair. The Mormon religion relies on the given that God will manifest truth unto those who ask. The only way to disprove the religion is to actually go through the process and not get a personal answer. Even then the claim is usually made that the inherent evil in man can cause a person to not be able to hear God's message, or to misinterpret it.

Your arguments about how Ethelred uses improper methods of proof against Christian texts applies to your methods of proof against Mormon texts.

I do agree in your assessment of the plausibility of the BoM and LDS doctrine. It's very unlikely.

I appreciate your points and quite obviously as an ex-Mormon yourself, you understand the ins of the religion much better than I do. I will certainly concede that my understanding of Mormonism is extremely limited. I have only read parts of BoM and other LDS scriptures. I rely on ex-Mormons for information because many aspects of Mormon practice are highly secretive to the uninitiated. I take their comments with a grain of salt, however, recognizing that they all-too-often have an extremely jaded view of their ex-Faith. However, they are often an excellent source of information because they still often retain the ability to speak objectively about their ex-religion, particularly the farther removed they are from their involvement in it. You would seem to fit into this latter category.

[ckweb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by Troll


I am sure glad that I am able to "offend" now, as opposed to you or anyone out here going to Heaven's gate, finding out the fact that you came sooooo close..but yet soooo far..from being accepted into Heaven. I say this to indeed bring attention to the fact that Jesus Christ did come to clarify and set things straight.

Ok..Gotta answer and respond to your putting words into my mouth, or forming opinions not expressed or believed by me. I DID NOT MAKE REFERENCE to Catholicism, or "Puragtory", I am sure hoping you get some thicker skin, you will need it come eternity in Hell, Fiery furnace, Gnashing of Teeth, unquenchable fire, yup...you are sure gonna need it.

I came to this forum to voice an opinion of mine, Facts..laid upon me by God, to give the straight Facts, Yes Jesus Christ did in most cases come forth with a Gentle Spirit, but he did otherwise hold account those whom despised him, mocked him, and mistreated his children!

Look, I have sit here,watched many people slander God, and Slander Eternity's Plan of Salvation, Slander Creation through God, and Slander the Trinity. I love you, Jesus Loves you, I came not to start pain without substanence, but bring the Truth which will set you free!

If this bothers you, i am sorry, for once I was too antagonistical, full of bitternes, mockery and guile,vile spatterings, attacking all whom I came in contact with! I am simply sharing that Jesus Died for our Sins, paid the price at Golgotha and was raied three days later, and after a short time, Ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.

As for asking Non-Christains for Forgiveness, I ask if I have offended you, outside of sharing the Gospel, please forgive me. If I offended you through the Gospel, count it a blessing that it happened here, and not at Judgement day!

In Jesus Name

Troll

Troll: Your post is not a demonstration of love nor is it in Jesus' name. I make this statement with the opinion that you do not display the fruits of the spirit. In my opinion, you bring disrepute upon Christ and his church. I have nothing more to discuss with you.