My Take on Why Mormons Become Athiests

[Sir]

Something that we keep seeing on boards like this one from critics of Mormonism is the idea that Mormonism is not true or false based on anything other than Mormonism. The critics use this as an excuse to refuse having an actualy discussion or dialogue about faith or Jesus Christ. So whenever a critic is asked to engage in an actual discussion, meaning they also answer questions about THEIR positions and beliefs, they hide behind this self-made cloak to avoid sharing their beliefs of what they believe to be true.

The critics seem to think that, since Mormonism is either true or not regardless of the critcs' faith, that they are not obligated to share their faith. But if the critics' faith is true (which obviously they believe it is), then by nit sharing it and presenting something better for the LDS to accept and leave Mormonism, they are not really doing any Christian service or witnessing for Jesus Christ. For them, the end is to get someone out of Mormonism but not to get them to follow Jesus like they do. Now I realize the critics' response will be that in order for them to find the "real Jesus" the Mormon needs to have their current paradigm transformed and so they have to tear down that paradigm. But that is simply a rouse to avoid actually sharing with the LDS why THEIR beliefs are the correct way.

The most prolific critics that post here have actually professed that they are not here to discuss whether Mormonism is true or not, but rather to ask questions of Mormons and then sit high on their loft and scoffing at the Mormon's answers and claiming that whatever answer is given is a sign of the mental deficiency that is in the minds of LDS people. So much for bringing people closer to Jesus!!

Then you have the other MO of the critics that say, "I'm not here to discuss MY faith. Your faith-claims are not determined by mine." But they don't seem to realize that if their own faith is not sufficient to share and hopefully (in their eyes) replace the LDS faith, then what good is it to tear down the LDS faith without replacing it with what they believe is better, superior, and true?

[Billyray]

Something that we keep seeing on boards like this one from critics of Mormonism is the idea that Mormonism is not true or false based on anything other than Mormonism.


Is Mormonism true or false based on what I believe OR is it true or false independent of what I believe?

(BTW I find it odd that you of all people would make this complaint since you rarely try to defend what you believe)

[Sir]

Is Mormonism true or false based on what I believe OR is it true or false independent of what I believe?



Your need to only respond with your own questions, and the question you are posing, is exactly the point I was making.

Thank you.

And for the record, it is true in spite of your own beliefs. The point being that since you deny that Mormonism is true, your only MO is to tear it down while refusing to actually engage the Mormon in a dialogue of the beliefs you believe are true. Actually, kind of a selfish thing, don't you think? To believe you have the truth and to refuse to share it with others in lieu of simply telling others why you think they are wrong? Humph...

[Billyray]

Here is a post by Theo 1689 from another board that deals with this subject so I am reprinting it here because it is relevant to your OP



Theo 1689

There's something called a "red herring" fallacy. It's when someone wishes to dodge a topic by throwing out something completely unrelated, hoping people will be more interested in following that thought than in actually engaging the actual topic, in just the same way that an escaped fugitive might throw out a "red herring" to try to confuse the tracking dogs, and getting them off the scent. "Calvinism" is just one of many "red herrings" Mormons throw around to try to avoid actually defending their own beliefs.

And that's the point in that other thread.

Mormonism gets challenged, and Mormons throw out "But Calvinism!", as if that solves anything. But there are those such as Martureo, who don't believe in Calvinism, and so your red herring demonstrates nothing, and the challenge to Mormonism remains undefended.

And then Mormonism gets challenged again, and Mormons throw out, "But the Trinity!", as if that solves anything. But there are those such as atheists, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses, who reject the Trinity but still know that Mormonism is wrong, and so your red herring demonstrates nothing, and the challenge to Mormonism remains undefended.

--------------------------------------

That's why we constantly bring up two constant truisms:

1) Mormons have no defense of Mormonism against atheism, since they need another religion to "counterattack", as a red herring;

2) Attacking another religion doesn't make Mormonism true.

[Billyray]

Your need to only respond with your own questions, and the question you are posing, is exactly the point I was making.


How about giving me an honest answer to my question.

Is Mormonism true or false based on what I believe OR is it true or false independent of what I believe?




And for the record, it is true in spite of your own beliefs.

Then you shouldn't find it hard to actually discuss your faith and attempt to defend it.

[Sir]

How about giving me an honest answer to my question.

Is Mormonism true or false based on what I believe OR is it true or false independent of what I believe?



Then you shouldn't find it hard to actually discuss your faith and attempt to defend it.

I like how you demand an answer from me and then had to edit your post to actually show the answer which I had already given. Shows that you really only read what you want to read.

:)

Also, I don't find defending my faith hard at all. The OP topic, that I understand you will purposely twist into your own agenda, is to give my take on why some LDS might become Athiests when they leave the church. because critics like yourself believe that their faith is not to be shared in a discussion of why Mormonism is wrong, and you [general critics] selfishly refuse to explain why your faith is true and better in lieu of only tearing down Mormonism.

The very claims that a Mormon will make to show why their believe Mormonism to be true are the same types of claims that you would use to show an Athiest why your beliefs are true. And the Athiest will give you the same response as you give the LDS, so it shouldn't be hard to see why one-way discussions don't go very far.

[Billyray]

It is a cl***ic example of those who are trying to justify their own decision to leave something even though their new home is not completely fulfilling.

Does a person who leaves Mormonism for any reason make Mormonism true or false?

[Sir]

Here is the trick which you must have missed which is really just a diversion that happens all of the time with you guys.

Going back to my example, when a critic claims the Book of Mormon is not from God because it had 4000+ changes, and then the Mormon asks the critic if that means (according to their logic) that the Bible is not from God since it has had 100,000+ changes, billyray wants to call that a "little trick" or a "red herring". The problem is billy just said a red herring is "when someone wishes to dodge a topic by throwing out something completely unrelated, hoping people will be more interested in following that thought than in actually engaging the actual topic" And yet the topic is not unrelated at all. In fact, it is the SAME topic, just being asked in reverse. But critics, realizing that their logic is one of scorched-earth, have no other choice but to cry "We're not here to talk about MY beliefs".

[Billyray]

Going back to my example, when a critic claims the Book of Mormon is not from God because it had 4000+ changes, and then the Mormon asks the critic if that means (according to their logic) that the Bible is not from God since it has had 100,000+ changes, billyray wants to call that a "little trick" or a "red herring".
How does this help you with a Muslm or an atheist who doesn't believe the Bible?

[Billyray]

the Bible is not from God since it has had 100,000+ changes,
BTW this statement shows your complete ignorance about the Bible just so you know.

[neverending]

Something that we keep seeing on boards like this one from critics of Mormonism is the idea that Mormonism is not true or false based on anything other than Mormonism. The critics use this as an excuse to refuse having an actualy discussion or dialogue about faith or Jesus Christ. So whenever a critic is asked to engage in an actual discussion, meaning they also answer questions about THEIR positions and beliefs, they hide behind this self-made cloak to avoid sharing their beliefs of what they believe to be true.

The critics seem to think that, since Mormonism is either true or not regardless of the critcs' faith, that they are not obligated to share their faith. But if the critics' faith is true (which obviously they believe it is), then by nit sharing it and presenting something better for the LDS to accept and leave Mormonism, they are not really doing any Christian service or witnessing for Jesus Christ. For them, the end is to get someone out of Mormonism but not to get them to follow Jesus like they do. Now I realize the critics' response will be that in order for them to find the "real Jesus" the Mormon needs to have their current paradigm transformed and so they have to tear down that paradigm. But that is simply a rouse to avoid actually sharing with the LDS why THEIR beliefs are the correct way.

The most prolific critics that post here have actually professed that they are not here to discuss whether Mormonism is true or not, but rather to ask questions of Mormons and then sit high on their loft and scoffing at the Mormon's answers and claiming that whatever answer is given is a sign of the mental deficiency that is in the minds of LDS people. So much for bringing people closer to Jesus!!

Then you have the other MO of the critics that say, "I'm not here to discuss MY faith. Your faith-claims are not determined by mine." But they don't seem to realize that if their own faith is not sufficient to share and hopefully (in their eyes) replace the LDS faith, then what good is it to tear down the LDS faith without replacing it with what they believe is better, superior, and true?


Sir,
Unlike you, I did read your tirade and BTW the definition of a tirade is an angry, violent speech. HMMM.....I know for a fact that what I wrote was neither angry nor violent but because you refused to read it, you jumped to an inaccurate conclusion, ***uming things that were not true. And I find your thread to be disingenous because I have posted so many posts where I have shared my faith, so all I can say is you have failed to read them. James as well has shared our faith. How many times do we have to tell you how important it is to have Jesus Christ in your life? How many times have we told you Esphesians 2:8-9, " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Please read these verses carefully. It tells us that being saved is by God's grace and it is His gift.....this grace is given to us freely, not something we have to earn with good works so that no one can boast. Do you not know of people who love to boast about all they do with church?

I didn't see anything in your thread mentioning why Mormons become atheists. I have the reason why that happens, because of being told all their lives that Mormonism is the only truth that the LDS Church is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, then what other church could be true? Other faiths have been made fun of for years in your temple ceremonies so those poor souls feel they have no recourse. With that mindset, they turn from God and join the Godless which I find is so sad.

[Sir]

Sir,
Unlike you, I did read your tirade and BTW the definition of a tirade is an angry, violent speech. HMMM

Um, okay. I guess if you consider my OP to be angry and violent, who am I to say you cannot hold such an erroneous position? It does tell me a little about how you perceive things, though.


.....I know for a fact that what I wrote was neither angry nor violent but because you refused to read it, you jumped to an inaccurate conclusion, ***uming things that were not true.

Um, okay. I never called your post a "tirade", so if that is your argument it again confirms to me how you [mis]perceive things.


And I find your thread to be disingenous because I have posted so many posts where I have shared my faith, so all I can say is you have failed to read them.

That's fine. My thread is not devoted to you specifically, so if you felt the need to personalize it and then call it disingenuous because you don't fit the description, who am I to tell you you cannot feel that way?



I didn't see anything in your thread mentioning why Mormons become atheists.

I'm sorry that you missed that. Maybe it was too subtle. Here it is in Cliff-notes version: when critics attack the LDS church but refuse to share what they believe they have as truth, if someone leaves the LDS faith because of the critic they do not have anything to replace their lost faith since the critic's only objective was to tear down.



I have the reason why that happens, because of being told all their lives that Mormonism is the only truth that the LDS Church is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, then what other church could be true? Other faiths have been made fun of for years in your temple ceremonies so those poor souls feel they have no recourse. With that mindset, they turn from God and join the Godless which I find is so sad.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[Sir]

BTW this statement shows your complete ignorance about the Bible just so you know.

Oh....so you are of the opinion that the Bible has NOT had 100,000 of changes to it.

That's fine.

Facts are stubborn things, though. :)

But I know that you simply had the need to make ad hominem attacks, you know, that thing you rail on others about. No sweat. :)

[Billyray]

Oh....so you are of the opinion that the Bible has NOT had 100,000 of changes to it.

mod edit There has not been 100,000 CHANGES in the Bible.

[Libby]

But they don't seem to realize that if their own faith is not sufficient to share and hopefully (in their eyes) replace the LDS faith, then what good is it to tear down the LDS faith without replacing it with what they believe is better, superior, and true?

Yes, indeed. This is one of my pet peeves about "some" of the critics of Mormonism (not all, but "many"). And, I think, often, it is done out of ignorance, but exactly as you said, Sir, (and also said by "I think"?? Gordon B. Hinckley)...you don't tear down a man's house, before you have built him a new one. That just doesn't make good sense. And, those who advocate tearing down a man's religion, before they show him "a new one" (we would ***ume a BETTER ONE), is just asking to leave that person out in the cold, with no where to go. I think that is one of the reasons we find so many LDS turning to atheism. They haven't been shown anything that is better...sometimes, it appears that, what is out there, is much worse (judging by the behavior of some of the believers). Sad, but true. That's why behavior on boards like this is so important, if you are TRULY and sincerely interested in leading people to Christ.

[Sir]

Yes, indeed. This is one of my pet peeves about "some" of the critics of Mormonism (not all, but "many"). And, I think, often, it is done out of ignorance, but exactly as you said, Sir, (and also said by "I think"?? Gordon B. Hinckley)...you don't tear down a man's house, before you have built him a new one. That just doesn't make good sense. And, those who advocate tearing down a man's religion, before they show him "a new one" (we would ***ume a BETTER ONE), is just asking to leave that person out in the cold, with no where to go. I think that is one of the reasons we find so many LDS turning to atheism. They haven't been shown anything that is better...sometimes, it appears that, what is out there, is much worse (judging by the behavior of some of the believers). Sad, but true. That's why behavior on boards like this is so important, if you are TRULY and sincerely interested in leading people to Christ.

You said it better than I did. Awesome. Thanks!

[Billyray]

We know you really can't help yourself to the ad homs, billyray. Just please don't ever criticize others for namecalling, as you so often do.

When you say silly stuff like there have been 100,000 changes in the Bible what else can I say. BTW what you meant to say is that there are textual variations in the m****cripts not changes in the Bible.

[Libby]

When you say silly stuff like there have been 100,000 changes in the Bible what else can I say. BTW what you meant to say is that there are textual variations in the m****cripts not changes in the Bible.

How many changes do you think have been made to the Bible, Billy? I have seen numbers, but I'd have to look it up again. Pretty sure they number in the thousands. A lot of changes have been made.

What always impresses me is that Christians use the same reasoning for those changes that LDS use, but when LDS do it, they are called "excuses".

[Sir]

When you say silly stuff like there have been 100,000 changes in the Bible what else can I say. BTW what you meant to say is that there are textual variations in the m****cripts not changes in the Bible.

Interesting.....so billyray's justification for namecalling is "when you say silly stuff what else can I say"

But all those times you preached against namecalling, mostly when I would call your views hypocritical, and when you even went in search of past posts where I made ad hominem attacks....

...it's just a curious thing that you would now justify your ad hominem of others, given all that. And somewhat ironic given the name I called you that sent you on your admonitions of others for namecalling. :)

Carry on.

[Billyray]

Interesting.....so billyray's justification for namecalling is "when you say silly stuff what else can I say"


(Mod edit) is an accurate description of your comment.

[Billyray]

How many changes do you think have been made to the Bible, Billy? I have seen numbers, but I'd have to look it up again. Pretty sure they number in the thousands. A lot of changes have been made.


What he meant to say is that are are 100,000 textual variants in the thousands of ancient m****cripts for the NT. The more m****cripts you have the more variants you will have. There are not 100,000 changes that have taken place in the Bible itself.

[Billyray]

How many changes do you think have been made to the Bible, Billy? I have seen numbers, but I'd have to look it up again. Pretty sure they number in the thousands. A lot of changes have been made.
.

Here is a reference that I gave you before that answers these questions


James White and Bart Ehrman debated last year about "Misquoting Jesus" here is a link to the PDF for the debate. (The link is specifically for the debate, not a recommendation for the website). It was a good debate and teases out the issues on both sides.
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/white-ehrman-transcript.pdf


Thanks, Billyray. I am reading it, right now. It really is very interesting!

[Libby]

Here is a reference that I gave you before that answers these questions

Yes, I remember reading that, but I still don't remember how many corrections have been made to the Bible. Do you have some kind of ballpark figure? I'm sure Dr. Ehrman and Dr. White disagreed on the figure?

[Libby]

What he meant to say is that are are 100,000 textual variants in the thousands of ancient m****cripts for the NT. The more m****cripts you have the more variants you will have. There are not 100,000 changes that have taken place in the Bible itself.

What's the difference between a "change" and a "variant"? Do the variants have, basically, the same meaning? So, you would only count actual changes, right?

[Billyray]

What always impresses me is that Christians use the same reasoning for those changes that LDS use, but when LDS do it, they are called "excuses".

Libby since you are here for truth this should be an easy one for you. The Bible has thousands of ancient m****cripts. The basis for variations is that each m****cript has variations just like any handwritten copy that you would make would have variations in spelling etc.

Now let's look at the Book of Mormon for comparison, how many ancient m****cripts have been found that pre date Joseph?

[Libby]

Would you answer my questions first, please?

[Libby]

TEXTUAL VARIANT: A version of a text that has differences in wording or structure compared with other texts, especially one with missing lines or extra lines added. In some cases, textual variants reflect the difference between an author's early version or rough draft of a work and a later version or polished final product.

[Billyray]

Okay, that's kind of what I thought.

Really, this change in the Book of Mormon, from "white" to "pure" could be considered a variant...yes?
With the Book of Mormon you have zero ancient m****cripts that pre date Joseph, which screams fraud right off the bat. Second in the case with the Book of Mormon you have an original document via Joseph so you don't have any variants. Any changes would be an alteration from the original m****cript.

[Billyray]

TEXTUAL VARIANT: A version of a text that has differences in wording or structure compared with other texts, especially one with missing lines or extra lines added. In some cases, textual variants reflect the difference between an author's early version or rough draft of a work and a later version or polished final product.

If you made hundreds of hand written copies from an original document you would likely have hundreds if not thousands of variants. But it would be highly likely that you would be able to determine the original simply by comparing the various copies despite having hundreds if not thousands of variants.

[BigJulie]

Libby, back to the original question of "why Mormons become atheists"--I can tell you my take. As I have looked at the arguments against Mormonism, if I do a little research, I find that those same arguments destroy Christianity and even more so "evangelicalism" as evangelicalism has the flimsiest of foundations (but lets not get into that).

So, I start researching the Bible and the background of the Bible and I come across information from scholars not only noting the changes, but also when some of these changes were thought to come about. Well, some of these things makes one question the authenticity of the Bible authors all together, truth be told.

What Billyray tries to shrug off as "variations" in text, can be found to be down right huge changes and if you really study up--you can even find that the basic theology has changed over time.

This isn't my take on it, these are the readings that I come across from scholarly journals, people with their doctorates in divinity, etc.

So, then I have to ask myself--is ANY of this true? What I have to fall back on is my own personal spiritual experience coupled with my life experiences. Ultimately, I have to say, what I am taught on the basics is true and so I have to ***ume that the source I am learning this from is true.

I will give an example. In the Bible (as well as in Mormonism), we are taught that fornication and adultery is wrong and an offense to God. Now, there is a lot of pull when you are dating and a teenager to let yourself give into the temptations of the body. So, how did religion play out for me. Well, first I had faith that what I was taught was true. Second, I believed that there was a God and God had a Son who atoned for my sins. Third, God was there to help me both resist temptation and to be forgiven for sin.

Well, the way this worked is that I did see this work in my life. I saw that I could resist temptation. Also, when I younger and had an incident in which I was somewhat molested (I say somewhat because it was a one time incident and not a lot happned), I prayed and received an answer which was to go talk to my mother about it. I had a lot of guilt around the incident. I did as I was instructed to in my prayer and spoke to my mother. She explained it was not my fault and then took steps to protect me. I prayed again and I knew I had followed the counsel of the Holy Ghost. I understood the sweetness of a loving God. As I dated, I had already learned the guilt ***ociated with unappropriate sexual behaviors and so I was very careful regarding who I would date and what I would allow (I never even so much as allowed a guy to french kiss me). Now I have been married for many years and I see the result of what following the wise counsel of the prophets throughout the ages leads to---a very trusting marriage and ***urance of your own self control as well as your spouse's ability to self control. This brings happiness not only for me, but also for my children who have been raised in a loving, stable home.

Okay, so--what does it matter regarding chas***y? Well, because I can look at all the talk around the Bible or the Book of Mormon and ask myself if any of it is true OR I can look to my own life, my own spiritual experiences and see that what I have been taught is true. As those spiritual experiences have grown, I can then have confidence that what these prophets teach that I have not had first hand experience with is also true--that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and that He died for me and that I will raise from the dead and that I will be with Him and my family again. This means a lot to me. And so I reject all the historians (whether for the Bible or for the Book of Mormon) who would cast doubt on my testimony.

That is why when I am asked for proof, I say--my life; because that is the proof that matters to me.

[Sir]

I g n o r a n t is an accurate description of your comment.

I know.

Hypocritical was a description of your comments....remember?

But you sure whined and complained that you were being namecalled.

No big deal. I just had to point out the fact that while you complain about people namecalling, you do it yourself and even justify it by claiming "what else are you going to do".

Some would call those actions hypocritical.

LOL

[Billyray]

As I have looked at the arguments against Mormonism, if I do a little research, I find that those same arguments destroy Christianity and even more so "evangelicalism" as evangelicalism has the flimsiest of foundations (but lets not get into that).


The teachings of Mormonism are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible J. So when looking at it from a Christian perspective it is laughable that you would call Christianity and specifically the Protestant position as flimsy.

[Billyray]

What Billyray tries to shrug off as "variations" in text, can be found to be down right huge changes and if you really study up--you can even find that the basic theology has changed over time.

Please back up your claim that a variation has changed a Christian doctrine.

Please give me a specific verse that you are referring to and the variation. You can even use my old posts which speak about specific variations.

[BigJulie]

The teachings of Mormonism are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible J. So when looking at it from a Christian perspective it is laughable that you would call Christianity and specifically the Protestant position as flimsy.

And the rest of my post---why I believe what I do and why some Mormons become athiests---

So, I start researching the Bible and the background of the Bible and I come across information from scholars not only noting the changes, but also when some of these changes were thought to come about. Well, some of these things makes one question the authenticity of the Bible authors all together, truth be told.

What Billyray tries to shrug off as "variations" in text, can be found to be down right huge changes and if you really study up--you can even find that the basic theology has changed over time.

This isn't my take on it, these are the readings that I come across from scholarly journals, people with their doctorates in divinity, etc.

So, then I have to ask myself--is ANY of this true? What I have to fall back on is my own personal spiritual experience coupled with my life experiences. Ultimately, I have to say, what I am taught on the basics is true and so I have to ***ume that the source I am learning this from is true.

I will give an example. In the Bible (as well as in Mormonism), we are taught that fornication and adultery is wrong and an offense to God. Now, there is a lot of pull when you are dating and a teenager to let yourself give into the temptations of the body. So, how did religion play out for me. Well, first I had faith that what I was taught was true. Second, I believed that there was a God and God had a Son who atoned for my sins. Third, God was there to help me both resist temptation and to be forgiven for sin.

Well, the way this worked is that I did see this work in my life. I saw that I could resist temptation. Also, when I younger and had an incident in which I was somewhat molested (I say somewhat because it was a one time incident and not a lot happned), I prayed and received an answer which was to go talk to my mother about it. I had a lot of guilt around the incident. I did as I was instructed to in my prayer and spoke to my mother. She explained it was not my fault and then took steps to protect me. I prayed again and I knew I had followed the counsel of the Holy Ghost. I understood the sweetness of a loving God. As I dated, I had already learned the guilt ***ociated with unappropriate sexual behaviors and so I was very careful regarding who I would date and what I would allow (I never even so much as allowed a guy to french kiss me). Now I have been married for many years and I see the result of what following the wise counsel of the prophets throughout the ages leads to---a very trusting marriage and ***urance of your own self control as well as your spouse's ability to self control. This brings happiness not only for me, but also for my children who have been raised in a loving, stable home.

Okay, so--what does it matter regarding chas***y? Well, because I can look at all the talk around the Bible or the Book of Mormon and ask myself if any of it is true OR I can look to my own life, my own spiritual experiences and see that what I have been taught is true. As those spiritual experiences have grown, I can then have confidence that what these prophets teach that I have not had first hand experience with is also true--that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and that He died for me and that I will raise from the dead and that I will be with Him and my family again. This means a lot to me. And so I reject all the historians (whether for the Bible or for the Book of Mormon) who would cast doubt on my testimony.

That is why when I am asked for proof, I say--my life; because that is the proof that matters to me.
__________________
Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

[BigJulie]

Please back up your claim that a variation has changed a Christian doctrine.

Please give me a specific verse that you are referring to and the variation. You can even use my old posts which speak about specific variations.

It not a specific verse, it is studying the history of the Bible and what is being uncovered at more and more information is coming forward.

I shouldn't say--the history of the Bible and how it came to be, but rather the history of what is within the Bible itself and what we are learning about it through a historical look.

[Billyray]

Well, because I can look at all the talk around the Bible or the Book of Mormon and ask myself if any of it is true OR I can look to my own life, my own spiritual experiences and see that what I have been taught is true. . .That is why when I am asked for proof, I say--my life; because that is the proof that matters to me.


People from all religions could make the same claim as you but this doesn't mean all faiths that are mutually exclusive are true. That is the problem with this type of proof J it doesn't hold water and doesn't prove Mormonism to be true.

[Billyray]

It not a specific verse, it is studying the history of the Bible and what is being uncovered at more and more information is coming forward.

Please back up your claim J. Give me a specific verse and variation that you feel has changed the Christian doctrine over time.

[Billyray]

It not a specific verse, it is studying the history of the Bible and what is being uncovered at more and more information is coming forward.


How does this change God's word?

[Billyray]

What Billyray tries to shrug off as "variations" in text, can be found to be down right huge changes and if you really study up-
Show me these HUGE changes with respect to NT variations?

[Billyray]

Why do LDS members leave and become atheist? There are likely many reasons but the obvious one for me is that you have a non Christian who leaves Mormonism and remains a non Christian.

[BigJulie]

Why do LDS members leave and become atheist? There are likely many reasons but the obvious one for me is that you have a non Christian who leaves Mormonism and remains a non Christian.

Billyray, you want me to argue with you regarding Christianity---the Bible, etc. I am giving you MY take. When you provide and argument and I do a little research into it---what I find destroys YOUR belief system as well as my own. You may want to sit and argue why this can't be so, but this is MY experience. I can see easily then, why Mormons, when confronted with tactics such as yours, when they start digging to verify what YOU say, find that not only their religion, but ALL religions start to fall apart. WHY? Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart.

Therefore, for me, I must fall back then on my own spiritual experiences, my own faith, and my own life experiences to come to a knowledge that what is taught is true---because HISTORY won't do it; much as you would like to think it does. Historians rip your religion to bits and once the Bible can be proven false---then Christians, Muslims, Mormons, JW's----all of these religions crumble.

The truth be told---one of the sources that I turn to to verify the Bible IS the Book of Mormon because I know the Book of Mormon is true, therefore, the "history" shown of the Bible by historians is less likely to destroy my testimony of it (the Bible).

And this makes me wonder if one of the tactics of "evangelicals' is to keep their followers conscentrating on the "cults' because it it one way in which to keep them unified and i.gnorant to the fact that their destructive, critical-eye tactics are destructive to ALL Biblically based religions.

[Billyray]

Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart.

Tell me how the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart.

[Billyray]

The truth be told---one of the sources that I turn to to verify the Bible IS the Book of Mormon because I know the Book of Mormon is true, therefore, the "history" shown of the Bible by historians is less likely to destroy my testimony of it (the Bible).
Yet nothing validates the history of the Book of Mormon which to most thinking people shows that is not what it says it is and if you can't trust the historical aspect you can't trust the spiritual aspect of what is taught in it.

[Libby]

Libby, back to the original question of "why Mormons become atheists"--I can tell you my take. As I have looked at the arguments against Mormonism, if I do a little research, I find that those same arguments destroy Christianity and even more so "evangelicalism" as evangelicalism has the flimsiest of foundations (but lets not get into that).

Julie, yes, this is very true. I think that's the reason Christians don't like it, when LDS start doing comparisons. They call it dodging or diversion, but, really, they know that the same criticisms they lodge against the LDS Church (and many other religions) can be used against their own. Not only the textual variant argument, but all of their claims regarding the real core of Christianity (the miracles and visions, the resurrection, etc)...none of that can be objectively proven, and must be accepted based on faith.

[BigJulie]

Tell me how the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart.

Billyray, I am not going to argue this with you. I am telling you my experience as I research what you, Brian, and others say and the tactics you use. I think you think you talk to us in a vacuum, where the Internet is not avaible and that we will take everything you say at face value. The fact of the matter is though that as I have started to look at your arguments and others, what it does it destroy religion in general.

So, I guess the question is---is this a trend that is seen---Mormons leave their religion to go to athiesm? You can guess all you want regarding this. I am telling you MY experience based on what occurs here--which is, I either had to decide that I was going to believe what I believe based on faith or on history because once I look at the history side and use the arguments you provide--ALL religions based on the Bible start to fail. Therefore, I can make one of two choices---either the Bible is right and historians are still figuring things out or the historians have it right and what we believe is wrong and that our "religion" will just evolve into something new in the next 100 years.

[Billyray]

They call it dodging or diversion, but, really, they know that the same criticisms they lodge against the LDS Church (and many other religions) can be used against their own.

Libby you said that you were here to defend truth. (mod edit)

A criticism against the Book of Mormon is that there are not any ancient m****cripts for the B of M. Can this same argument be used against the Bible?

[BigJulie]

Julie, yes, this is very true. I think that's the reason Christians don't like it, when LDS start doing comparisons. They call it dodging or diversion, but, really, they know that the same criticisms they lodge against the LDS Church (and many other religions) can be used against their own. Not only the textual variant argument, but all of their claims regarding the real core of Christianity (the miracles and visions, the resurrection, etc)...none of that can be objectively proven, and must be accepted based on faith.

Not only that Libby---but you can see that theology has evolved over the ages. If anything, Joseph Smith was more in touch with ancient traditions than those of today---but if we must rely on historical studies to determine what to believe, at what point do we choose? Any evangelical or protestant with any sense of honest self evaluation would have to say that they have in some ways departed from what was before them.

[Libby]

With the Book of Mormon you have zero ancient m****cripts that pre date Joseph, which screams fraud right off the bat. Second in the case with the Book of Mormon you have an original document via Joseph so you don't have any variants. Any changes would be an alteration from the original m****cript.

Not sure about your logic, here, Billy.

The original Bible m****cripts had zero "ancient m****cripts". Does that mean they were "frauds", when they were first written?

[Billyray]

The fact of the matter is though that as I have started to look at your arguments and others, what it does it destroy religion in general.

And I see this as a common LDS tactic to try and sure up their own beliefs. Try to discredit the Bible which somehow validates your own faith. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense but it must to you.

[Libby]

Not only that Libby---but you can see that theology has evolved over the ages. If anything, Joseph Smith was more in touch with ancient traditions than those of today---but if we must rely on historical studies to determine what to believe, at what point do we choose? Any evangelical or protestant with any sense of honest self evaluation would have to say that they have in some ways departed from what was before them.

Yes, very true.

I have become a big believer in personal revelation. Frankly, that's the only thing I trust, these days. It's not unlike what you described about living a principle and learning it for yourself. That was a good description of how God's principles can be actually "known", in a very real way.

[Libby]

And I see this as a common LDS tactic to try and sure up their own beliefs. Try to discredit the Bible which somehow validates your own faith. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense but it must to you.

I have never seen an LDS try and "discredit the Bible", although, they do get accused of that, every single time they try to show you how your arguments against the Book of Mormon, etc, can be applied to the Bible. The point is, Billy, that most all religion, including acceptance of scripture, is primarily based on faith.

[BigJulie]

And I see this as a common LDS tactic to try and sure up their own beliefs. Try to discredit the Bible which somehow validates your own faith. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense but it must to you.

You see this as a tactic---I see this as a reality. The way it comes across to me is that what you see as "common LDS tactic" is a common evangelical defense tactic. As long as you get defensive about what we are seeing, you will never understand what we are seeing and why.

If you remember, this thread addresse "why Mormons become athiests." I am merely giving you my experience as to what you criticisms of my religion did and the following research I discovered as a result. You can claim this is a "tactic" all you want, but it will only prevent you from seeing another's experience through their eyes.

[Billyray]

Billyray
With the Book of Mormon you have zero ancient m****cripts that pre date Joseph, which screams fraud right off the bat.



Not sure about your logic, here, Billy.

The original Bible m****cripts had zero "ancient m****cripts". Does that mean they were "frauds", when they were first written?

Libby do you honestly not know what I am talking about? (mod edit)

How many ancient m****cripts for the Book of Mormon do we have that pre date Joseph Smith? None. Why is that do you think?

[Billyray]

I have never seen an LDS try and "discredit the Bible",

J just tried to do that a few post back


Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart.

Libby you are here to defend the truth. Is J's statement supporting or attempting to discredit the Bible?

[Libby]

Libby do you honestly not know what I am talking about? (mod edit)

How many ancient m****cripts for the Book of Mormon do we have that pre date Joseph Smith? None. Why is that do you think?

I think that you probably think it is because Joseph (or one or more of his cohorts) actually wrote the Book of Mormon. I certainly wouldn't disregard that, as a possibility.

[Libby]

J just tried to do that a few post back



Libby you are here to defend the truth. Is J's statement supporting or attempting to discredit the Bible?

Well, since I know that Julie is LDS and believes the Bible is inspired and God's word (as far as translated correctly), I know that she is not trying to "discredit" it. I think she is showing you that it definitely has some problems, and one has to be discriminating, when accepting as "God's truth" things that are in there. That doesn't mean the Bible, as a whole, is not inspired by God. You are engaging in black and white thinking again.

[Billyray]

Well, since I know that Julie is LDS and believes the Bible is inspired and God's word (as far as translated correctly), I know that she is not trying to "discredit" it.

"Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart."

Tell me what J's statement means.

[Billyray]

I think that you probably think it is because Joseph (or one or more of his cohorts) actually wrote the Book of Mormon.

Why do you think that not a shred of ancient writings have surfaced that would confirm the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon in the Americas?

[Libby]

Why do you think that not a shred of ancient writings have surfaced that would confirm the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon in the Americas?

I don't know. And, any answer to that question is speculation.

[Billyray]

Well, since I know that Julie is LDS and believes the Bible is inspired and God's word (as far as translated correctly), I know that she is not trying to "discredit" it.


What Billyray tries to shrug off as "variations" in text, can be found to be down right huge changes and if you really study up-
Libby is this statement from J supporting the Bible as we have it today or discrediting it?

[Billyray]

Well, since I know that Julie is LDS and believes the Bible is inspired and God's word (as far as translated correctly)

Can you tell me what verses you believe are not translated correctly?

[Libby]

"Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart."

Tell me what J's statement means.

I think she is telling you that a good (scholarly) case can be made that could rip the Bible right out from under your feet (just as you all try to do with the Book of Mormon). Which is why one needs to have faith.

[Billyray]

I think she is telling you that a good (scholarly) case can be made that could rip the Bible right out from under your feet. Which is why one needs to have faith.

So is she supporting the Bible or trying to discredit it?

[Libby]

Can you tell me what verses you believe are not translated correctly?

No. I am not a Bible scholar.

[Billyray]

No. I am not a Bible scholar.
Any guesses at all at a single verse that you feel is translated incorrectly?

And if you can come up with one how does the incorrect translation change the meaning of the verse in your opinion?

[Libby]

So is she supporting the Bible or trying to discredit it?

Both.

I think she is, basically, saying what I have already told you, numerous times. Religion is based on faith and personal spiritual experiences...not on scholarship. This is where Christians, trying to tear down other religions, based on scholarship, miss the boat. They also, often, take an axe to their own spiritual tree.

[Libby]

Any guesses at all at a single verse that you feel is translated incorrectly?

I couldn't presume to even guess at what might be wrongly translated. I can tell you what I believe (from personal experience and revelation) is NOT from God...but, that's not quite the same thing.

[Billyray]

Both.


"Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart.

Is J's statement above supportive of the Bible or discrediting it?

[BigJulie]

"Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart.

Is J's statement above supportive of the Bible or discrediting it?

Did you read my whole post as to why I believe the Bible? As usual, Billyray, you take one sentence and make it into your whole view. It is like seeing only the trunk of an elephant and then pounding that view as a way to ignore the elephant. And yes, there is an elephant in the room here.

[Billyray]

Did you read my whole post as to why I believe the Bible? As usual, Billyray, you take one sentence and make it into your whole view. It is like seeing only the trunk of an elephant and then pounding that view as a way to ignore the elephant. And yes, there is an elephant in the room here.

Was your statement supportive of the Bible or was it your way to discredit the Bible?

[James Banta]

Something that we keep seeing on boards like this one from critics of Mormonism is the idea that Mormonism is not true or false based on anything other than Mormonism. The critics use this as an excuse to refuse having an actualy discussion or dialogue about faith or Jesus Christ. So whenever a critic is asked to engage in an actual discussion, meaning they also answer questions about THEIR positions and beliefs, they hide behind this self-made cloak to avoid sharing their beliefs of what they believe to be true.

The critics seem to think that, since Mormonism is either true or not regardless of the critcs' faith, that they are not obligated to share their faith. But if the critics' faith is true (which obviously they believe it is), then by nit sharing it and presenting something better for the LDS to accept and leave Mormonism, they are not really doing any Christian service or witnessing for Jesus Christ. For them, the end is to get someone out of Mormonism but not to get them to follow Jesus like they do. Now I realize the critics' response will be that in order for them to find the "real Jesus" the Mormon needs to have their current paradigm transformed and so they have to tear down that paradigm. But that is simply a rouse to avoid actually sharing with the LDS why THEIR beliefs are the correct way.

The most prolific critics that post here have actually professed that they are not here to discuss whether Mormonism is true or not, but rather to ask questions of Mormons and then sit high on their loft and scoffing at the Mormon's answers and claiming that whatever answer is given is a sign of the mental deficiency that is in the minds of LDS people. So much for bringing people closer to Jesus!!

Then you have the other MO of the critics that say, "I'm not here to discuss MY faith. Your faith-claims are not determined by mine." But they don't seem to realize that if their own faith is not sufficient to share and hopefully (in their eyes) replace the LDS faith, then what good is it to tear down the LDS faith without replacing it with what they believe is better, superior, and true?

You are right. To a large extent the doctrines are ignored to the use of what mormons do instead of what they believe.. While that is true it is also is not wrong in the doing since we can't see the hearts of the LDS we must see their faith thought their works (James 2:18). When we do that mormonism fails completely, but that isn't fair either because Christian too fail in doing the work of Love that Jesus commanded..

I know that NE is big on that. She sees the truth or the lie of a message by how the members of a church have treated her.. As I have said this is both right and wrong.. While I support her in her feelings about the horrible way she had been treated by many LDS I am more into doctrinal reasons for seeing mormon is as a made invented LIE..

The Biggest most terrible doctrine of the LDS church is the teaching of Smith that God the Father "Became God". That there was once a time when he was our peer (intelligence existence), there was another when He was a mere man, and then became a god through obedience to laws and ordinances. God became a God? It doesn't stop there. Continuing on that theme Jesus also became God after being born (first born is granted) in a spirit world as our spirit brother along with the being that became Satan he formed the world as directed by the Father.. He had no power to create anything but to only form the eternal elements (At least you believe something is eternal) into the world we now live on.. All this disagrees with the Bible that says God has always been God, From everlasting to everlasting He is God. Jesus is taught to have been with Father as God from the beginning.

Yet mormonism teaches he is a creation.. Your Father in Heaven, and your Jesus are both created beings, they are NOT the everlasting God. Everlasting to Everlasting is the extent of time He has been God it is NOT A ***LE.. Therefore the Bible teaches that God has been God from eternity past and will continue as such into eternity future. Denying that is to reinvent God and making an idol from an image of your own imagination instead of just believing what He has told us about Himself though His word.. As long as you hold this man invented God you will never be a Christian no matter what names or works you ascribe to your idol formed by a man instead of submitting to the God that formed man.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Was your statement supportive of the Bible or was it your way to discredit the Bible?

It was supportive of the Bible as my ultimate conclusion based on faith, spiritual experience, and my life point to its truthfullness.

[Billyray]

It was supportive of the Bible as my ultimate conclusion based on faith, spiritual experience, and my life point to its truthfullness.


I can see easily then, why Mormons, when confronted with tactics such as yours, when they start digging to verify what YOU say, find that not only their religion, but ALL religions start to fall apart. WHY? Because if the fundamentals of the Bible fall apart, all religions that rely on Abraham as one of their central figures start to fall apart.
Tell me why you believe your statement is supportive of the Bible because it certainly doesn't sound supportive to me.

[Billyray]

The truth be told---one of the sources that I turn to to verify the Bible IS the Book of Mormon because I know the Book of Mormon is true, therefore, the "history" shown of the Bible by historians is less likely to destroy my testimony of it (the Bible).
Without the Book of Mormon and your faith based based on the B of M would you find the Bible reliable or unreliable?

[BigJulie]

Tell me why you believe your statement is supportive of the Bible because it certainly doesn't sound supportive to me.

Yes, I am sure out of context it might appear that way, which is why you need to continue reading and put it in context.

[BigJulie]

Without the Book of Mormon and your faith based based on the B of M would you find the Bible reliable or unreliable?

I would still find the Bible reliable based on how I draw my conclusions that make it reliable which is faith, spiritual experiences, and the proof of my life--which is what I concluded earlier. But, the Book of Mormon reinforces my faith in the Bible; which was my point.

[Billyray]

Yes, I am sure out of context it might appear that way, which is why you need to continue reading and put it in context.
It is critical in context.

[Billyray]

I would still find the Bible reliable based on how I draw my conclusions that make it reliable which is faith, spiritual experiences, and the proof of my life--which is what I concluded earlier.
What you are saying is that without your faith in the Book of Mormon to support your belief in the Bible you find the Bible unreliable.

[BigJulie]

What you are saying is that without your faith in the Book of Mormon to support your belief in the Bible you find the Bible unreliable.

Read it again Billyray. I refuse to keep answering your same questions put in a different way to see if I will say something different.

[Billyray]

Read it again Billyray. I refuse to keep answering your same questions put in a different way to see if I will say something different.

I read it again and it is clear that to you the Bible is not sufficiently reliable on its own for you.

[BigJulie]

I read it again and it is clear that to you the Bible is not sufficiently reliable on its own for you.

Billyray, one of the things you do when trying to make your point is that you decide what you THINK we believe (as noted with this post) rather than try to understand us and then keep pecking away at that point (like a hen).

So, this thread is about why Mormons become athiests. Can I just add another thought to this. Is it possible that Mormons become athiests because once their faith is destroyed by such tactics as this that they also do not want to ***ociate themselves with a group that uses such tactics?

[Billyray]

So, this thread is about why Mormons become athiests. Can I just add another thought to this. Is it possible that Mormons become athiests because once their faith is destroyed by such tactics as this that they also do not want to ***ociate themselves with a group that uses such tactics?

And your point was the Bible is not sufficiently reliable for you that is why faith in the Book of Mormon helps you with your faith in the Bible.

[BigJulie]

And your point was the Bible is not sufficiently reliable for you that is why faith in the Book of Mormon helps you with your faith in the Bible.

As noted, the pecking continues. Peck, peck, peck.

[neverending]

Billyray, one of the things you do when trying to make your point is that you decide what you THINK we believe (as noted with this post) rather than try to understand us and then keep pecking away at that point (like a hen).

So, this thread is about why Mormons become athiests. Can I just add another thought to this. Is it possible that Mormons become athiests because once their faith is destroyed by such tactics as this that they also do not want to ***ociate themselves with a group that uses such tactics?


BJ: Could it also be that since all LDS are taught that their church is the only TRUE CHURCH and all other faiths are frowned upon because of this teaching, that when a Mormon does leave the fold, they leave bewildered and very often end up atheists? It makes me very sad when I hear that that has happened to someone....to totally turn your back on God is certainly not the right way to go. And, why doesn't your Church do more to reach out to those members who are inactive and find out why they've become so? This problem isn't only in your Church but affects all faiths, as fewer and fewer people find a need to attend church. Isn't this also a sign of the times?

[neverending]

Um, okay. I guess if you consider my OP to be angry and violent, who am I to say you cannot hold such an erroneous position? It does tell me a little about how you perceive things, though.



Um, okay. I never called your post a "tirade", so if that is your argument it again confirms to me how you [mis]perceive things.



That's fine. My thread is not devoted to you specifically, so if you felt the need to personalize it and then call it disingenuous because you don't fit the description, who am I to tell you you cannot feel that way?




I'm sorry that you missed that. Maybe it was too subtle. Here it is in Cliff-notes version: when critics attack the LDS church but refuse to share what they believe they have as truth, if someone leaves the LDS faith because of the critic they do not have anything to replace their lost faith since the critic's only objective was to tear down.




Thanks for sharing your opinion.


Sir,
When I am wrong I admit it. You didn't call my post a tirade but a diatribe which still was insulting. So, now a Christian has actually admitted they were wrong.....see, we're not all evil :) Anyway, my post was not angry nor violent but had something very important that I wish you had taken time to read so I am going to repost it:

Sir,
So sorry :( the kidding is ALL YOURS! For you live a lie everyday, following a false prophet a man who'd steal the coppers off a dead man's eyes. A liar, a great con artist, a traitor to our country and a man who couldn't even get it straight as to who he saw in his proclaimed visions. I proclaim the falsehoods of Mormonism for knowing the truths about it, and knowing that ALL Mormons with their strange doctrines are doomed to the Lake of Fire, I can not and will not stand by idly and not try to tell people, to warn them. An example: say I was going for my daily morning walk. You happen to be one of my neighbors. It's early around 6 am on a sa****ay. As I approach your house I see smoke and flames pouring out of one window. Do I just walk on by or do I call 911? What you're saying is that you'd rather I walk on by then call for help. How very sad indeed. After all, you wouldn't want me to disturb your sleep because I wanted to save your life and the life of your family; is this using good wisdom?

"God's wisdom is so far above our human understanding that we consider it foolishness. For centuries, humanity has tried to make sense of this world with philosophies and theories, because it could not grasp the Truth of God. Only God's wisdom will lead us on the right path. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Human wisdom may show us the problems of life, but it fails to give us the solutions. The root of all of our problems is sin, which humanity refuses to acknowledge. The unrepentant heart justifies and explains away sinful behavior.

Human wisdom asks, "Who needs the Cross when we are good people?" However, human intellect cannot save us from an eternity in hell. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death" (Proverbs 16:25).

People consider the Cross foolishness because admitting their sinfulness and the need for Christ's redemption means they must also surrender to God. They must give up their own wisdom and glory for God's. And most people are unwilling to admit God's ways are better than theirs". (http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/Ne...ews_iv_ctrl=-1)

I so hope you took the time to read my post. My being here is not to be entertained as some have admitted but to come and share what I have learned and hopefully show people my love for my Savior. Forgive me when I do show anger but I am not perfect, no one can be in these earthly bodies. If I have failed then it is my sin and it rests on my shoulders.

[BigJulie]

BJ: Could it also be that since all LDS are taught that their church is the only TRUE CHURCH and all other faiths are frowned upon because of this teaching, that when a Mormon does leave the fold, they leave bewildered and very often end up atheists? It makes me very sad when I hear that that has happened to someone....to totally turn your back on God is certainly not the right way to go. And, why doesn't your Church do more to reach out to those members who are inactive and find out why they've become so? This problem isn't only in your Church but affects all faiths, as fewer and fewer people find a need to attend church. Isn't this also a sign of the times?

One, I am not sure about your hypothesis as I have not left the church; I can only speak of what I see here happening which is that sites like this do more to destroy faith in Christ in general first by their tactics and second by their tactics. Meaning, the tactics used to destroy the Mormon's faith also destroy faith in Christianity in general and second, the tactics used are so unchristian that they may put a negative ***ociation with christianity.

Lastly, we do try to reach out to those who are leaving or have become inactive. We care a lot. If you know the amount of prayers and help offered (at least in my experience), you would not say such a thing. But ultimately, we don't force anything and God allows everyone to choose for themselves.

The reason I think fewer and fewer people attend church is the direct result of WM and those that do as he has done. When a door is opened (can I call it arrogance and hypocricy) to criticize other churches, it opens the door for all churches to be criticized. What a parent models to his/her child is mocking/laughing/belittling/criticizing another's beliefs. Am I at all then suprised that the next generation after the Martinians would leave church all together? NO.

This makes me curious---how are your own children when it comes to christianity? Are they all strong in the faith?

[Billyray]

Meaning, the tactics used to destroy the Mormon's faith also destroy faith in Christianity in general You have said this now a couple of times can you elaborate for me what you mean?

[BigJulie]

You have said this now a couple of times can you elaborate for me what you mean?

Any tactic you use to criticize us can be turned on you as you likewise believe what you do based on faith. Or do you not believe what you do based on faith?

[Billyray]

The reason I think fewer and fewer people attend church is the direct result of WM and those that do as he has done.
WM or the WM board?

[Billyray]

Any tactic you use to criticize us can be turned on you as you likewise believe what you do based on faith.

OK let's test your theory. One of the reasons that I don't believe the book of Mormon is that there is no ancient m****cript evidence.

[Billyray]

Any tactic you use to criticize us can be turned on you as you likewise believe what you do based on faith.

One reason that I don't believe Mormonism is that it's teachings are not consistent with teachings in the Bible.

[BigJulie]

OK let's test your theory. One of the reasons that I don't believe the book of Mormon is that there is no ancient m****cript evidence.

Wait--are you saying that you don't believe the Bible based on faith, but on evidence?

Show me evidence that the earth was created in 7 days if you want to use scientific "evidence" to support your beliefs.

[BigJulie]

One reason that I don't believe Mormonism is that it's teachings are not consistent with teachings in the Bible.

I believe they are. In fact, when you show me how you read the Bible (which you even admit disagrees with what other christians at times say), then I don't look to the way you read the Bible to provide "proof" of what is right or not.

[BigJulie]

WM or the WM board?

The tactics used by Walter Martin and those like him has unleashed acceptance of these types of unchristian tactics in Christian homes. Hence, what goes around, comes around.

[Billyray]

Wait--are you saying that you don't believe the Bible based on faith, but on evidence?


Faith is based on evidence.

[BigJulie]

Faith is based on evidence.

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Okay, since you believe that faith is based on evidence---please provide your evidence that the world was created in 7 days as taught in the Bible.

[Billyray]

Show me evidence that the earth was created in 7 days if you want to use scientific "evidence" to support your beliefs.

Sure. Jesus is God and he validated the truthfulness of the OT scriptures. We have evidence of Jesus and his claims via the NT records.

[BigJulie]

Sure. Jesus is God and he validated the truthfulness of the OT scriptures. We have evidence of Jesus and his claims via the NT records.

Circular argument. Please provide proof outside of the scriptures that the world was created in 7 days.

[Billyray]

I believe they are.

Lets test your claim.

Where does the Bible teach that there is a heavenly mother?

[BigJulie]

Lets test your claim.

Where does the Bible teach that there is a heavenly mother?

I am providing the test for my claim.

What is your evidence, that is not circular and from within the scriptures, that show that the world was created in 7 days.

If your criticisms of me stem from the Bible, then you must first prove to me that the Bible is correct. (Remember, we are discussing why Mormoms become athiests and I said that the same tactics used against my faith can be used against yours.--so in this test, you cannot use your beliefs to attack mine, you must see if yours will stand up to the same scrutinty.)

So, once again, what is your proof that the earth was created in 7 days.

Personally, I think you bring up an old attack because you realize that you can't defend your faith using the same tactics you use against mine.

Come on Billyray, you said that to you "faith is based on evidence." Where is your evidence?

[Billyray]

Circular argument. Please provide proof outside of the scriptures that the world was created in 7 days.

Why do you think that it is a circular argument?

[BigJulie]

Why do you think that it is a circular argument?

Because you are using the source of your belief as the proof of your belief. It is a circular argument.

Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is ***umed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. (From Wiki).

Your argument is that since you believe part of the Bible is true and that part of the Bible confirms the other part of the Bible, it must all be true.

[Billyray]

Because you are using the source of your belief as the proof of your belief. It is a circular argument.

The source of my belief is in independent eye witness records.

[BigJulie]

The source of my belief is in independent eye witness records.

Nope, the eye-witness records are part of the Bible; hence, we must have evidence outside of it.

One way I could argue the same way is that since Joseph Smith is a prophet and he states that the Book of Mormon is true, then it must be true. We also have eye-witnesses to the Book of Mormon as a record. Hence, since we have witnesses that it exists, then Joseph Smith must be telling the truth and if Joseph Smith is telling the truth, then he must be a prophet and the Book of Mormon must be true.

But you do not ask us to provide proof from within our beliefs or faith or those who likewise believe, but you ask us to provide proof from outside sources.

On that basis, please provide your outside source that the earth was created in 7 days.

[Billyray]

Nope, the eye-witness records are part of the Bible; hence, we must have evidence outside of it.



The Bible is made up of individual books. That basis for my belief is Jesus is from the independent eye witness testimony.

[BigJulie]

The Bible is made up of individual books. That basis for my belief is Jesus is from the independent eye witness testimony.

In other words, you cannot provide an outside source which backs the claim that the earth was made in 7 days.

So, now if I was to you use your tactics, I would just hen-peck you asking for a source from without the Bible to back your claims.

Billyray, do you think I could provide scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old and was not created in the time frame of the Bible and thereby refute your circular argument?

[Billyray]

In other words, you cannot provide an outside source which backs the claim that the earth was made in 7 days.


The reason I believe in the OT writings is because I believe that Jesus is God which is based on eyewitness testimony from independent witnesses of Jesus' life death and resurrection.

[Billyray]

Billyray, do you think I could provide scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old and was not created in the time frame of the Bible and thereby refute your circular argument?

The Bible does not tell us how old the earth is J.

[BigJulie]

The reason I believe in the OT writings is because I believe that Jesus is God which is based on eyewitness testimony from independent witnesses of Jesus' life death and resurrection.

As Brian would say, Irrelevant. It is a circular argument which provides no outside evidence and can be easily refuted by science. I would then go into a long scientific diatribe (and if i am Brian, I would provide no sources) and then make you find evidence to counter his "evidence." If I rely on faith or the evidence of my eye-witnesses, then that is considered irrelevant and that I cannot answer his charge. He would make sure to include insults regarding how I have been pre-programmed, etc.

[BigJulie]

The Bible does not tell us how old the earth is J.

It states that the earth was created in 7 days and then gives a time line of generations and how old the patriarchs live. Based on this, one can figure the approximate age of the earth starting from Adam to Moses, from Moses to Christ, etc.

So, can you provide proof that the earth was created in 7 days.

Now, I can go look up a quote from one of your favorite quoted sites which says:


Answer: Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically-based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This ***umes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.

The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years. http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html

Now I can ask you over and over again if you agree with this quote.

[Billyray]

It states that the earth was created in 7 days and then gives a time line of generations and how old the patriarchs live. Based on this, one can figure the approximate age of the earth starting from Adam to Moses, from Moses to Christ, etc.


Where does it give us the age of the earth?

[Billyray]

It is a circular argument which provides no outside evidence and can be easily refuted by science.
It is not a circular argument at all.

In a court of law you call independent witness to testify about a particular event. How is this different that independent writings that testify about an ancient event?

[BigJulie]

Where does it give us the age of the earth?

Now, I can go look up a quote from one of your favorite quoted sites which says:



Quote:
Answer: Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically-based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This ***umes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.

The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years. http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html

Now I can ask you over and over again if you agree with this quote.

[Billyray]

It is a circular argument which provides no outside evidence and can be easily refuted by science.

How is my argument refuted by science?

[BigJulie]

It is not a circular argument at all.

In a court of law you call independent witness to testify about a particular event. How is this different that independent writings that testify about an ancient event?

Yes, but those eye-witnesses are not here. I likewise have eye-witnesses to my faith.

The question now is can your circular argument refute scientific evidence.

[Billyray]

Now I can ask you over and over again if you agree with this quote.

The Bible does not tell us how old the earth is J. If you think that it does then please give me a verse.

[BigJulie]

How is my argument refuted by science?

I will do what you do.

First off--do you agree with this statement from other Christians who claim they have answers and which you yourself have quoted many times:

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."

From scientific sources: "briefly the evidence that has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old."

Radiometric dating is one scientific method used to date the earth:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

[Billyray]

Yes, but those eye-witnesses are not here. I likewise have eye-witnesses to my faith.


They were still eye witnesses of the events and is no different than eye witness testimony we have today. If we have written testimony of witnesses today and look at their written testimony is 100 years what they have said is still eye witness testimony despite them being dead.

[BigJulie]

The Bible does not tell us how old the earth is J. If you think that it does then please give me a verse.

Do you agree with the statement:

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."

from a source you have used often on this site to answer questions.

I will continue to ask you this question over and over and over again until it comes across as hen-pecking.

[BigJulie]

They were still eye witnesses of the events and is no different than eye witness testimony we have today. If we have written testimony of witnesses today and look at their written testimony is 100 years what they have said is still eye witness testimony despite them being dead.

Good, I have eye-witnesses that the gold plates exist and that these eye-witnesses saw an angel who testified to them. I likewise have eye-witnesses to my faith. Yet, this is still a circular argument when you use your scriptures as a source to believe your scriptures.

If I was Brian, I would continue to just say "irrelevant" to your claims. Can you PROVE that the earth was created in 7 days. If you cannot prove this, you must be wrong---according to Brian anyways.

[BigJulie]

Can you now see how this works Billyray, that the tactics you use to destroy Mormonism and other faiths are the same tactics that can be used to destroy faith in general?

[Billyray]

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."

From scientific sources: "briefly the evidence that has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old."

Radiometric dating is one scientific method used to date the earth:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

My argument mentioned nothing about the age of the earth. Please tell me how science refutes my argument which is reprinted below.



The reason I believe in the OT writings is because I believe that Jesus is God which is based on eyewitness testimony from independent witnesses of Jesus' life death and resurrection.

[Billyray]

Can you now see how this works Billyray, that the tactics you use to destroy Mormonism and other faiths are the same tactics that can be used to destroy faith in general?

Not at all. We have ancient m****cripts which are eye witness testimony of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. These eye witness testimonies validates the claims that Jesus is who he claims to be which is God.

Now compare this to the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence that pre dates Joseph that this people group ever lived in the Americas. This is completely different than we have for the individual books of the Bible that testify about Jesus'.

[BigJulie]

My argument mentioned nothing about the age of the earth. Please tell me how science refutes my argument which is reprinted below.

I didn't ask you regarding what you mentioned---I found a quote from a christian source that you often use and found this quote:

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."


I only asked if you agree or disagree with it. Can you not answer that question?

See Billyray, this is often one of your tactics. When I try to tell you what I believe, you go to a source that you think is "doctrine" to me and then you find a quote in which you think disagrees with my belief and then you ask over and over and over again if I agree or disagree with it. Do you see how this tactic can then be used to destroy christianity as well? You yourself are even ignoring my question---and this is something that Mormons are often criticized for doing.

[BigJulie]

Not at all. We have ancient m****cripts which are eye witness testimony of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In these eye witness testimonies validates the claims of Jesus as God.

Now compare this to the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence that pre dates Joseph that this people group ever lived in the Americas. This is completely different than we have for the individual books of the Bible that testify about Jesus'.

There is no evidence that pre-dates Moses that the earth was created in 7 days. Please provide your outside evidence that is was.

Billyray, do you remember what this thread is about. To me, you adamently trying to back your beliefs against science is no different than me trying to back my beliefs against your "proof." Why then would someone, when they leave Mormonism, go to athiesm. Because in destroying the faith of other religions, you destroy faith in christianity. Now, you can argue until you are blue in the face that it is not the same--but the fact of the matter, it doesn't matter if you think it is the same or not it matter if THEY think it is the same.

[Billyray]

There is no evidence that pre-dates Moses that the earth was created in 7 days. Please provide your outside evidence that is was.

I never said that there was evidence that pre dates Moses.

Can you show me evidence that pre dates Moses for the age of the earth being billions of years old?

[Billyray]

Why isn't there any ancient m****cripts for the Book of Mormon.

[BigJulie]

I never said that there was evidence that pre dates Moses.

Can you show me evidence that pre dates Moses for the age of the earth being billions of years old?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

There is ample scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Read this site for starters.

Now, you still did not even answer my question regarding whether you agreed with the statement from a christian site that you often refer to. If I were a christian arguing against Mormonism, I would say that you are dodging, running away, ignoring, trying to divert, etc.

Billyray, do you remember what this thread is about. To me, you adamently trying to back your beliefs against science is no different than me trying to back my beliefs against your "proof." Why then would someone, when they leave Mormonism, go to athiesm. Because in destroying the faith of other religions, you destroy faith in christianity. Now, you can argue until you are blue in the face that it is not the same--but the fact of the matter, it doesn't matter if you think it is the same or not it matters if THEY think it is the same.

[BigJulie]

Why isn't there any ancient m****cripts for the Book of Mormon.

Why isn't there any ancient m****cripts from Abraham? Did Moses make the whole thing up?

I can show you many m****cipts of the Book of Mormon is you would like---I have many of them lying around my house as we speak--if having multiple copies of a scripture makes them true and in 2,000 years, my m****cripts will be just as old, thus proving that they are true (according to you.)

[Billyray]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

There is ample scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Read this site for starters.


I never argued the age of the earth J so this is a red herring.

[BigJulie]

I never argued the age of the earth J so this is a red herring.

Another tactic thrown around. I asked you if you agree with the Christian site you often refer to.

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."

Do you agree with this statement Billyray?

See, you can't prove that the earth was created in 7 days and you will not even acknowledge whether or not these christians (who you often quote) are right or not.

[Billyray]

Because in destroying the faith of other religions, you destroy faith in christianity. .

That is absolutely false. Faith in Christianity is based on existing evidence. The Book of Mormon has no evidence to support it that predates Joseph. This is a huge difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

[Billyray]

Another tactic thrown around. I asked you if you agree with the Christian site you often refer to.

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."

Do you agree with this statement Billyray?

See, you can't prove that the earth was created in 7 days and you will not even acknowledge whether or not these christians (who you often quote) are right or not.
First the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is nor did I argue the age of the earth so this is a straw man.

[BigJulie]

That is absolutely false. Faith in Christianity is based on existing evidence. The Book of Mormon has no evidence to support it that predates Joseph. This is a huge difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

Okay...I am not going to argue with you anymore. It is clear that you are criticizing the mote in my eye and ignoring your own beam. You keep believing whatever you want Billyray.

[Billyray]

Okay...I am not going to argue with you anymore. It is clear that you are criticizing the mote in my eye and ignoring your own beam. You keep believing whatever you want Billyray.

The point is that you are wrong J. I asked you specifically about ancient Book of Mormon m****cripts. How can this argument be used against Christians?

[BigJulie]

The point is that you are wrong J. I asked you specifically about ancient Book of Mormon m****cripts. How can this argument be used against Christians?

It is obvious that you don't get it Billyray. I have tried to show you why, but then you start using the same defenses that Mormons use and you still don't get it. *sigh*

I'll tell you what, go find a Mormon who became an athiest and argue it out with them.

[Billyray]

It is obvious that you don't get it Billyray. I have tried to show you why, but then you start using the same defenses that Mormons use and you still don't get it.

I do get it. You believe in a book that claims to be a historical record of people living in the Americas but there is absolutely not evidence for this. Compare this to the Bible which claims to be a historical record and you can find that people, places, artifacts, ancient m****cripts etc that actually existed. There is simply no comparison.

[Billyray]

I can show you many m****cipts of the Book of Mormon is you would like---I have many of them lying around my house as we speak--

Any date prior to Joseph?

Compare this to the NT m****cripts where we have thousands of ancient copies, in fact we have one that dates as far back as 125AD known as P52

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/P52_recto.jpg

[Russianwolfe]

It is critical in context.

It was critical of the tactics of using history and archeaology to prove the spiritual truths of the Bible. When you examine the current evidence and current thinking of the scholars, the Bible is less reliable than you think. But when you accept the spiritual truths in the Bible and live by them, then you, as Christ points out:

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

will find the the real truth of the Bible. The historical accuracy of the Bible does not dimish or increase its reliability in the realm of spiritual truth. But you can only realize the spiritual truths of the Bible or any scripture for that matter by living the truths not by researching the history of the Bible.

The spiritual truths of the Bible are wasted on those who think it is only good history.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

What you are saying is that without your faith in the Book of Mormon to support your belief in the Bible you find the Bible unreliable.

BUZZ!! Thanks for playing. Your unfounded conclusion has disqualified you from playing further. Good luck in the future and may God be with you.

Marvin

[James Banta]

BUZZ!! Thanks for playing. Your unfounded conclusion has disqualified you from playing further. Good luck in the future and may God be with you.

Marvin

By all means don't tell us what you do mean just play your silly games.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Why do some Mormons leave and become atheists IMO?

1. They are not Christian as a Mormon and they remain non Christian when they leave

2. They are trained to believe that they belong to the only true church and when they start to see the inconsistencies in the doctrine they lose faith in all religion because they start from the false ***umption that if the LDS church is the only true church and it is false then all religions are false.

[James Banta]

Why isn't there any ancient m****cripts from Abraham? Did Moses make the whole thing up?

I can show you many m****cripts of the Book of Mormon is you would like---I have many of them lying around my house as we speak--if having multiple copies of a scripture makes them true and in 2,000 years, my m****cripts will be just as old, thus proving that they are true (according to you.)

Show one of them.. Show any BofM m****cripts that predate Joseph Smith.. You state that as if it were true.. The only m****cripts you would have are those you copied yourself from the pages of the BofM.. There are no m****cripts of the BofM from ancient times, There were no Nephite people to write them EVER!! Did Moses speak to God? There is extrabiblical evidence that the story of the Exodus is true. And you have ZERO evidence for the BofM coming from antiquity.. IHS jim

[neverending]

Why isn't there any ancient m****cripts from Abraham? Did Moses make the whole thing up?

I can show you many m****cipts of the Book of Mormon is you would like---I have many of them lying around my house as we speak--if having multiple copies of a scripture makes them true and in 2,000 years, my m****cripts will be just as old, thus proving that they are true (according to you.)

BJ: you speak about these m****cripts as if they are grocery store adds, "lying around my house as we speak." If you truly have such things, I would think that your church would want them so they could be locked away for safe keeping. Please do show us all, just one of these so called m****cripts you possess. I think if you have anything at all, it is some kind of fake copy. We all know there was never a language called, reformed Egyptian. NO WHERE has anyone found any tablet or papyrus with such writtings. No one can prove the existance of even one city mentioned in your BoM, why is that? Yet the cities mentioned in the Bible are still in existance and even archeologists have found the area where Sodom and Gomorrah once was located. Found on the southeastern tip of the Dead Sea.

[Sir]

No one can prove the existance of even one city mentioned in your BoM, why is that?

Another one of those misrepresentations, neverending. You know, the ones you always claim never happen in your posts.

Jerusalem is mentioned in the Book of Mormon many times.

:cool:

[Billyray]

Another one of those misrepresentations, neverending. You know, the ones you always claim never happen in your posts.

Jerusalem is mentioned in the Book of Mormon many times.

Why do you think that there are no ancient m****cripts for the Book of Mormon that pre date Joseph and why haven't they found any cities in the Americas that are ancient Book of Mormon cities.

[Sir]

Why do you think that there are no ancient m****cripts for the Book of Mormon that pre date Joseph and why haven't they found any cities in the Americas that are ancient Book of Mormon cities.

Your question (?) doesn't follow my post.

Stay on topic! :p

[Billyray]

Your question (?) doesn't follow my post.

Stay on topic!
If you are honest with yourself you can only conclude that the Book of Mormon is not what it says it is but rather is religious fiction.

[Sir]

If you are honest with yourself you can only conclude that the Book of Mormon is not what it says it is but rather is religious fiction.

Well of course I wouldn't expect you to say anything different. It's the typical "Unless you see things as I do, you are the blind one that is lying to himself".

Thanks for opining!

[Billyray]

Well of course I wouldn't expect you to say anything different. It's the typical "Unless you see things as I do, you are the blind one that is lying to himself".

Thanks for opining!

Why should I believe that the Book of Mormon contains REAL history?

[Sir]

Why should I believe that the Book of Mormon contains REAL history?

You should only believe what the Holy Spirit tells you.

See?

Without LDS in this forum who would you post all your questions to? :p

[Billyray]

You should only believe what the Holy Spirit tells you.

See?


And the Holy Spirit has shown me that the teachings of Mormonism are false.

Any other reasons why I should believe the Book of Mormon is real history?

[Billyray]

Without LDS in this forum who would you post all your questions to?
Why don't you and theway make good on your threat and go away?

[Sir]

Why don't you and theway make good on your threat and go away?

Where did I threaten to leave?

Or are you purposely misrepresenting me?

[Billyray]

Where did I threaten to leave?

Or are you purposely misrepresenting me?

It is implied by statements such as this


If no Mormons were here to 'discuss' with you, then there would be no discussions at all. It would be all critics talking to each other and you would get bored and leave.

[Sir]

It is implied by statements such as this

Oh, I see. You simply came to your own incorrect conclusion of my comment and presented it as fact.

Nothing new from the LDS-critic crowd.

[neverending]

Another tactic thrown around. I asked you if you agree with the Christian site you often refer to.

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."

Do you agree with this statement Billyray?

See, you can't prove that the earth was created in 7 days and you will not even acknowledge whether or not these christians (who you often quote) are right or not.


The Bible deals ONLY with 6,000 yrs. of history. We know better that the earth is millions if not billions of years old. We have the remnants of dinosaurs to prove that the earth was millions of years old. As for how long it took God to create earth, he says it was 6 days but what is time to God? He created time and is not subject to it, it was created for man. A day to the Lord could be a million years for all we know, a twinkling in His eyes. Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."

[Billyray]

Oh, I see. You simply came to your own incorrect conclusion of my comment and presented it as fact.

Nothing new from the LDS-critic crowd.
Sir
"If no Mormons were here to 'discuss' with you, then there would be no discussions at all. It would be all critics talking to each other and you would get bored and leave."


Did you have a point in your statement above.

[Sir]

Sir
"If no Mormons were here to 'discuss' with you, then there would be no discussions at all. It would be all critics talking to each other and you would get bored and leave."


Did you have a point in your statement above.

I guess i can see how that statement i made would be confusing to you.

[Billyray]

I guess i can see how that statement i made would be confusing to you.
Because it is a veiled threat to leave and yet you say it is not. Nobody is forcing you to post here. If you want to leave please do so and drop the theatrics.

[Sir]

Because it is a veiled threat to leave and yet you say it is not. Nobody is forcing you to post here. If you want to leave please do so and drop the theatrics.

It is simply a statement of fact, not a "veiled threat". Just like my comparison of a hospital with only doctors and no patients. That isn't a threat to take all the patients away from a hospital. It simply acknowledges that you can't have one without the other without it falling apart. :)

[Russianwolfe]

Why should I believe that the Book of Mormon contains REAL history?

Its not a history book, Billyray. The purpose of the book is to testify of Jesus Christ. History is a vehicle to that end. A history book to suppose to explain history. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ not history.

I do not have a testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Its not a history book, Billyray. The purpose of the book is to testify of Jesus Christ. History is a vehicle to that end. A history book to suppose to explain history. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ not history.

I do not have a testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

Marvin

So you would be OK if the book of mormon history was made up as long as you feel the spiritual message was correct?

[BigJulie]

The Bible deals ONLY with 6,000 yrs. of history. We know better that the earth is millions if not billions of years old. We have the remnants of dinosaurs to prove that the earth was millions of years old. As for how long it took God to create earth, he says it was 6 days but what is time to God? He created time and is not subject to it, it was created for man. A day to the Lord could be a million years for all we know, a twinkling in His eyes. Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."

Thank you for responding---now, here is the next problem in scientific findings. Down in the Labria Tar pits is a skeleton of a woman who carbon dates to 10,000 years old. How can a woman end up in California who is 4,000 years older than the Bible states there should be a woman?

(I am not saying I do not believe the Bible, but Billyray seems to think that the Bible can hold up to "evidence" while the Book of Mormon cannot. I am merely pointing out the criticism used at the Book of Mormon can also be used to criticize the Bible.)

[Russianwolfe]

So you would be OK if the book of mormon history was made up as long as you feel the spiritual message was correct?

No, that is not correct. But your question is based on the false ***umption that the Book of Mormon is a history book. It is not. It is a witness that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. If it has history in it, it is because the book is talking about men who by their example and lives are witnesses of Christ.

Marvin

[Billyray]

No, that is not correct. But your question is based on the false ***umption that the Book of Mormon is a history book.

Marvin

It is suppose to contain accurate historical information Marvin.

[Billyray]

(I am not saying I do not believe the Bible, but Billyray seems to think that the Bible can hold up to "evidence" while the Book of Mormon cannot. I am merely pointing out the criticism used at the Book of Mormon can also be used to criticize the Bible.)

The criticism that I have used to compare the Bible verses the Book of Mormon was never about evidence surrounding evolution or the age of the earth. It is based on m****cript evidence, lack of historical evidence for the book of mormon etc. When comparing these facts there is no comparison between the two.

[Billyray]

Down in the Labria Tar pits is a skeleton of a woman who carbon dates to 10,000 years old.

Your ***uming that the carbon dates are correct.

[Libby]

Why would you ***ume they are not?

[Russianwolfe]

It is suppose to contain accurate historical information Marvin.

Where does the book ever claim 'to contain accurate historical information'? Please provide chapter and verse.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Why would you ***ume they are not?

J brought it up so I want to argue it with her.

[Billyray]

Where does the book ever claim 'to contain accurate historical information'? Please provide chapter and verse.

Marvin

Marvin the only thing I can take from your comment is that you don't believe the book of Mormon contains real history.

[Russianwolfe]

Marvin the only thing I can take from your comment is that you don't believe the book of Mormon contains real history.

You are the one who claims that it is suppose to be history. You are making a claim for the book that the book does not make for itself.

You can conclude nothing from my comment because I am asking a question about your statement. So you can take your twisted reasoning somewhere else.

Why don't you just answer the question? You made the claim, so backup your statement with real evidence.

Marvin

[Billyray]

You are the one who claims that it is suppose to be history. You are making a claim for the book that the book does not make for itself.


Is the church now teaching that the book of mormon does not contain true history? WOW! Things have certainly changed.

[Russianwolfe]

Is the church now teaching that the book of mormon does not contain true history? WOW! Things have certainly changed.

I can understandy why you keep avoiding the claim you made and try to make it look like I have said something that I never said. I can understand that you are embar***ed by what you have said and find that you cannot back it up with any support. I can understand it and feel pity for the way you are handling this siuation in your life.

Now, can you man up and support your claim. I think it would be expecting far too much to expect you to actually admit the truth and withdraw the claim.

Or is this just a game to you and you can say anything you want because nothing you say is really serious?

Marvin

[Billyray]

I can understandy why you keep avoiding the claim you made and try to make it look like I have said something that I never said. I can understand that you are embar***ed by what you have said and find that you cannot back it up with any support. I can understand it and feel pity for the way you are handling this siuation in your life.


I am more embarr***ed for you Marvin that it has come down to you now denying that the book of Mormon contains real history.

If you tell me flat out that you deny that the book of Mormon is real history I will take back any comment that I have made that says that you do believe it is true history.


You are the one who claims that it is suppose to be history. You are making a claim for the book that the book does not make for itself.

[BigJulie]

The criticism that I have used to compare the Bible verses the Book of Mormon was never about evidence surrounding evolution or the age of the earth. It is based on m****cript evidence, lack of historical evidence for the book of mormon etc. When comparing these facts there is no comparison between the two.

But Billyray, don't you get it---you don't get to narrowly define "the evidence" regarding the Bible to conform to what you want it to. Critics of the Bible use scientific evidence and m****cript evidence is a circular argument as I noted before.

[BigJulie]

I can understandy why you keep avoiding the claim you made and try to make it look like I have said something that I never said. I can understand that you are embar***ed by what you have said and find that you cannot back it up with any support. I can understand it and feel pity for the way you are handling this siuation in your life.

Now, can you man up and support your claim. I think it would be expecting far too much to expect you to actually admit the truth and withdraw the claim.

Or is this just a game to you and you can say anything you want because nothing you say is really serious?

Marvin

Russian, I understand what you are saying---the value of the Book of Mormon lies in its spiritual nature; those who merely want to see it as a history book do not understand the purpose of it as he seems to think that a book must be proven in always historically accurate to be considered true. (I on the other hand, explained I rely on faith, but Billyray must have more than that...and so I wait his proof.)

Billyray wants to say that Bible is true based on historical proof. That is why I am asking him to prove that the earth was created in 6 days (a day of rest in there). If he can prove this, then I will know that the "history" of the Bible is accurate.

[Billyray]

But Billyray, don't you get it---you don't get to narrowly define "the evidence" regarding the Bible to conform to what you want it to.

But you said that the argument that I used could be used against the Bible. That isn't true is it?

[Billyray]

and m****cript evidence is a circular argument as I noted before.

Not at all as I have noted before. How is using eye witness testimony from multiple sources as evidence for Jesus a circular argument?

[Billyray]

Critics of the Bible use scientific evidence

What scientific evidence do you want to use? Go ahead and use it and I will ask you some questions. Fair enough?

[Russianwolfe]

Russian, I understand what you are saying---the value of the Book of Mormon lies in its spiritual nature; those who merely want to see it as a history book do not understand the purpose of it as he seems to think that a book must be proven in always historically accurate to be considered true. (I on the other hand, explained I rely on faith, but Billyray must have more than that...and so I wait his proof.)

Billyray wants to say that Bible is true based on historical proof. That is why I am asking him to prove that the earth was created in 6 days (a day of rest in there). If he can prove this, then I will know that the "history" of the Bible is accurate.

If history proved the Bible correct, then there would be no atheists.

There is the problem of the history that the Bible portrays. I have a book ***led "The View from Nebo" that is a survey of the state of archeaology in Israel. It seems that the archeaology is not supporting the Bible's version of history. In many cases the evidence from archeaological digs is revealing a history much different from the one that the Bible portrays. The author interviews the scientists that are working in the digs not the academians. She deals with many of the controversies that have arisen because of the new information that is being uncovered in Israel. So, when they want to criticize the Book of Mormon for not being history, they have to do so with eye squeezed tightly shut and fingers plugging their ears. The only way anyone can continue to believe that the Bible is accurate history is to ignore what is coming out of Israel right now.

But for you and me, we don't worry about history proving the Bible or the Book of Mormon correct. We have our witness and there is no greater witness than the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Not at all as I have noted before. How is using eye witness testimony from multiple sources as evidence for Jesus a circular argument?

What multiple sources? Are all your witness' testimony recorded in the Bible? Then they come from a single source and it becomes circular when you use the record of the Bible to prove the Bible.

You won't allow qualified scholars who have the credentials and who happen to be LDS to present evidence of the Book of Mormon, why do you think you can present evidence from the very book you are suppose to be proving to be true?

Marvin

[Billyray]

If history proved the Bible correct, then there would be no atheists.


If a book claims to be true history that also contains spiritual information, and if you can show that the historical claims are false then you can't have confidence in trusting the spiritual material. That is the problem with the book of mormon. The historical aspects to hold water, there are no ancient m****cripts, you can't find any of the cities in the Americas. Bottom line it is historic fiction. But you guys are free to believe it, we are simply here to tell you that you are getting suckered. Whether or not you believe us is up to you.

[Billyray]

What multiple sources? Are all your witness' testimony recorded in the Bible? Then they come from a single source and it becomes circular when you use the record of the Bible to prove the Bible.


Marvin

They come from multiple individual books from multiple different authors. Why do you think that eye witness testimony that testifies about Jesus is circular reasoning? And how does this differ from multiple eye witness testimony in a court of law?

[Russianwolfe]

If a book claims to be true history that also contains spiritual information, and if you can show that the historical claims are false then you can't have confidence in trusting the spiritual material.


I disagree. We are to trust God. I see nothing in the scriptures that says that we are suppose to have confidence in the Bible. God, yes, the Bible, not so much.



That is the problem with the book of mormon.


Only for the spiritually blind.



The historical aspects to hold water, there are no ancient m****cripts, you can't find any of the cities in the Americas.


Funny how the Spanish went through the area and destroyed anything that they didn't like and slew any natives who wouldn't convert. And then they renamed all the cities. Do you think the Aztecs (who aren't in the Book of Mormon) called their city Mexico City?

The book itself makes it clear that we are to have faith in God not in history. I do not have a testimony of history. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, the Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh, and the only God with whom we are to look to for our salvation.



Bottom line it is historic fiction.


Why? Because you say so? There is a ton of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to doubt your statement.



But you guys are free to believe it, we are simply here to tell you that you are getting suckered. Whether or not you believe us is up to you.

You are the one who is getting suckered, Billyray. You can't expect God to tell you what you want to know simply because you want to know. Spiritual knowledge comes with a price and that price is to live what you learn. If you aren't willing to live what you learn, then God is not obligated to teach you. This is what James was talking about in this verse:


James 1: 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

If you will not commit to God (and you can't lie to God) without wavering you will not receive the knowledge you seek.

Marvin

[Billyray]

I see nothing in the scriptures that says that we are suppose to have confidence in the Bible.

Why would God give us His word if we couldn't trust what it said?

[Billyray]

The book itself makes it clear that we are to have faith in God not in history. I do not have a testimony of history. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, the Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh, and the only God with whom we are to look to for our salvation.

But if the book claims to be a true history and that claim is false then why on earth should you place your trust in the spiritual material?

[Billyray]

You can't expect God to tell you what you want to know simply because you want to know.

He has told us what He wants us to know which is in the Bible. And you would be wise to conform your beliefs to what is contained therein. But you won't because you are a hard headed Mormon and you ***ume that Mormonism is true . We have warned you Marvin the rest is up to you.

[Russianwolfe]

They come from multiple individual books from multiple different authors. Why do you think that eye witness testimony that testifies about Jesus is circular reasoning? And how does this differ from multiple eye witness testimony in a court of law?

Doesn't matter how you want to divide the Bible up, the fact is it is one witness. You don't see them as individual and separate books, so they are not individual and separate witnesses because you consider the Bible to be a single volume of scripture. All your witnesses come from a single geographical area of the world. The fact that they all bear the same witness is no suprise.

In a court of law, multiple witnesses which have no relationship to the defendant are good witnesses. The Bible's witnesses are a closely related tribe. There is not many witnesses but only one. The children of Israel.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Doesn't matter how you want to divide the Bible up, the fact is it is one witness.

Different books were written by different witnesses at different times and different places Marvin. So you are simply wrong here.

[Billyray]

In a court of law, multiple witnesses which have no relationship to the defendant are good witnesses.

And what would you call a person who testifies in a court of law who knows the defendant?

[Russianwolfe]

He has told us what He wants us to know which is in the Bible. And you would be wise to conform your beliefs to what is contained therein. But you won't because you are a hard headed Mormon and you ***ume that Mormonism is true . We have warned you Marvin the rest is up to you.

I believe that God is alive and quite capable of revealing more knowledge than what is contained in the Bible. He spoke to the people in the Bible and I believe he is still capable of speaking to people today.

My beliefs do conform to what I have read in the Bible.

I do not ***ume that LDS doctrine is true, I have a witness from God that it is true. I have had many witnesses. I have no doubt as to the truthfulness of the LDS church or its doctrines or of the divinity of the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

You might have warned me but you are no different that the false prophets who stood against Jeremiah. You also will come to the time when your houses will fall when you find that they are built upon the sands of the knowledge and understanding of men.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

And what would you call a person who testifies in a court of law who knows the defendant?

A weak witness.

Marvin

[Billyray]

My beliefs do conform to what I have read in the Bible.

Marvin I was Mormon and I know for a fact that if you believe in Mormonism that your beliefs do not line up with the Bible just like my beliefs as a Mormon did not line up with the Bible.

[Russianwolfe]

Marvin I was Mormon and I know for a fact that if you believe in Mormonism that your beliefs do not line up with the Bible just like my beliefs as a Mormon did not line up with the Bible.

Your beliefs are your beliefs. Mine line up with the Bible. Sorry about yours.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Your beliefs are your beliefs. Mine line up with the Bible. Sorry about yours.

Marvin

But my beliefs as a Mormon lined up with Mormonism and those beliefs are not consistent with what is taught in the Bible.

[Russianwolfe]

But my beliefs as a Mormon lined up with Mormonism and those beliefs are not consistent with what is taught in the Bible.

Sorry that you never studied the Bible enough to see that LDS doctrine aligns perfectly with the Bible. Sorry you knew so little about LDS doctrine and beliefs that you could not see that they align perfectly with the Bible. Sorry you never accepted the truth of God.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Sorry that you never studied the Bible enough to see that LDS doctrine aligns perfectly with the Bible.

Sorry but I know what Mormons believe and these beliefs do not line up with what the Bible teaches.

[Russianwolfe]

Sorry but I know what Mormons believe and these beliefs do not line up with what the Bible teaches.

I have also studied the Bible, for two years every 4. And I see that they do align with what the Bible teaches. And I understand why you don't think so. The blind can never appreciate the sunset.

Marvin

[Billyray]

I have also studied the Bible, for two years every 4. And I see that they do align with what the Bible teaches. And I understand why you don't think so. The blind can never appreciate the sunset.

Marvin

Fair enough let's test you theory.

Where does the Bible teach about a heavenly mother?

[Russianwolfe]

Fair enough let's test you theory.

Where does the Bible teach about a heavenly mother?

First, cite the scripture that shows that this is a doctrine of the church!

Marvin

[Billyray]

First, cite the scripture that shows that this is a doctrine of the church!

Marvin

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

[Russianwolfe]

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

Cite the scripture that proves this is doctrine and not just a teaching.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Cite the scripture that proves this is doctrine and not just a teaching.

Marvin
This is taught in Gospel Principles

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

[BigJulie]

I can see that Billyray has effectively taken this off-topic. Isn't this considered a "mormon tactic"? The question was poised why Mormons become athiests. I am still waiting for your proof Billyray that the earth was created in 6 days (and a rest day) so that you can prove that the Bible is historically correct.

As we have already had a long discussion that the belief that there is a mother in heaven is not one found in our scriptures, but we come to it by logic--if God tells us He is our Father and He is the one who created male and and female in "His image", and He is the one who created the ins***ution of marriage, we come to this conclusion by logic.

That said, let's see if you can get back on the topic or if you prefer to stay in your comfortable zone of only critiquing Mormons and have no ability to defend like-criticisms of your own stance. I stated I believe in the Bible by faith and not by historical proof. Since you demand historical proof, please do provide it. If you cannot, then this is precisely why the destructive means you use to destroy my faith also destroy your own.

[Billyray]

I can see that Billyray has effectively taken this off-topic.

Every single thread seems to go off target eventually.

[Billyray]

I am still waiting for your proof Billyray that the earth was created in 6 days (and a rest day) so that you can prove that the Bible is historically correct.

You can't prove every aspect of the history of the Bible and certainly not the part that takes place prior to any single person even setting foot on the earth. But you can prove certain aspects of the history of the Bible, such as people groups, places, and ancient m****cripts. For the Book of Mormon I am not requiring a different standard but the same standard. I don't expect for you to show every single detail and every single event that ever took place in Book of Mormon history but for some validation for people groups, places, ancient m****cript to validate the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

[Billyray]

I am still waiting for your proof Billyray that the earth was created in 6 days (and a rest day) so that you can prove that the Bible is historically correct.

Do you think anyone can give us exact details for events that took place at the point of creation of the universe including scientists?

[Billyray]

As I have looked at the arguments against Mormonism, if I do a little research, I find that those same arguments destroy Christianity and even more so "evangelicalism" as evangelicalism has the flimsiest of foundations (but lets not get into that).


J you claim that the SAME arguments that I have used against Mormonism can destroy Christianity. Are you ever going to tell me what arguments that I have used against Mormonism that would destroy Christianity. Thus far you have failed to identify them.

[Russianwolfe]

This is taught in Gospel Principles

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

Please cite the scripture that shows that this is doctrine.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Please cite the scripture that shows that this is doctrine.

Marvin

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

[Sir]

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

lol....billy is asking the question you should have asked.

They always claim that when LDS do this they are lying for the Lord and being purposely deceptive.

<shrug>

[Billyray]

lol....billy is asking the question you should have asked.

They always claim that when LDS do this they are lying for the Lord and being purposely deceptive.



Sir care to answer this easy and straightforward question?

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

[Sir]

Sir care to answer this easy and straightforward question?

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

I would've liked to see you continue in the conversation with Russianwolfe without twisting everything around that he asks, but that isn't likely.

[Billyray]

I would've liked to see you continue in the conversation with Russianwolfe without twisting everything around that he asks, but that isn't likely.

And I would like to see you or him answer a very easy question.

[Sir]

And I would like to see you or him answer a very easy question.

Your problem is you usually refuse to answer requests or question in lieu of asking your own. This is why many LDS simply quit the conversation with you. You demand they answer you but are many times less than willing to address them.

[BigJulie]

You can't prove every aspect of the history of the Bible and certainly not the part that takes place prior to any single person even setting foot on the earth. But you can prove certain aspects of the history of the Bible, such as people groups, places, and ancient m****cripts. For the Book of Mormon I am not requiring a different standard but the same standard. I don't expect for you to show every single detail and every single event that ever took place in Book of Mormon history but for some validation for people groups, places, ancient m****cript to validate the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Okay, so if we can prove certain aspects of the Book of Mormon, is that enough to convince you it is true?

And who says you can set the parameters of what is considered "proof"---what if we can prove that even one aspect of the Book of Mormon is true---is that enough?

[BigJulie]

Do you think anyone can give us exact details for events that took place at the point of creation of the universe including scientists?

I think that Adam could have written what occured himself in the garden of Eden and that could have been preserved by God. Why do we have to wait all the years until Moses to give a back account? Where did Moses get the record of what occured in the Garden of Eden, etc?

[Billyray]

Okay, so if we can prove certain aspects of the Book of Mormon, is that enough to convince you it is true?


If the historical aspects are false then you can't trust the spiritual concepts.

If a witness on the stand gives testimony and part of his testimony that you can't check up on is false then you will not trust that witness.

[Billyray]

Where did Moses get the record of what occured in the Garden of Eden, etc?

I don't know. It may have been oral tradition, written records, or direct relegation or a combination of all three.

[BigJulie]

If the historical aspects are false then you can't trust the spiritual concepts.

If a witness on the stand gives testimony and part of his testimony that you can't check up on is false then you will not trust that witness.

I wasn't speaking of the spiritual aspect of the Book of Mormon---I was saying that if one part of it could be proven true, would that be enough?

[BigJulie]

I don't know. It may have been oral tradition, written records, or direct relegation or a combination of all three.

But, if you don't have any proof of anything, then is it really true? That seems to be your argument, that there must be m****cripts or some tangible proof--if not, just relying on Moses is not enough.

[Billyray]

I wasn't speaking of the spiritual aspect of the Book of Mormon---I was saying that if one part of it could be proven true, would that be enough?

My example is perfectly relevant. The Book of Mormon has both a historical and a spiritual message. You can't verify the spiritual aspects but you can verify the historical aspects. When you check up on the parts that can be checked out (the historical) and they don't check out then there is no reason to trust the message that you can't check out.

The same applies to a witness. If a witness gives false information that can be verified should you trust the other information that he gives that can't be independently verified? Of course not.

[Billyray]

But, if you don't have any proof of anything, then is it really true? That seems to be your argument, that there must be m****cripts or some tangible proof--if not, just relying on Moses is not enough.
No go back and look at what I said. I believe Jesus is God based on independent eye witness evidence from multiple eye witnesses from multiple individual books written and different times and places. Because of this testimony I believe Jesus is God and as God he has validated the writings of the OT.

[Russianwolfe]

This is taught in Gospel Principles

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

Cite the scriptures that shows that this is doctrine.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

So you don't believe in a heavenly mother nor do you believe that the LDS church teaches about a heavenly mother?

Please cite the scripture that shows that this is doctrine.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Please cite the scripture that shows that this is doctrine.

Marvin

I guess this means you are either incapable or unwilling to answer a simple question. That's fine.

[Russianwolfe]

I guess this means you are either incapable or unwilling to answer a simple question. That's fine.

Your failure to answer my request is a demonstration that you are incapable of dealing with the truth. You want to compare Biblical doctrine to what? Gossip? Rumor? Teachings? What do you want to compare Billyray? If you want a level playing field, then compare doctrine to doctrine. Anything else will only show your disingenuousness and your bias and your prejudice.

Marvin

[Billyray]

You want to compare Biblical doctrine to what? Gossip? Rumor? Teachings?

I didn't think that the lds teaching of a heavenly mother was now on the level of gossip or rumor. Is that what you have reduced this teaching to?

[BigJulie]

My example is perfectly relevant. The Book of Mormon has both a historical and a spiritual message. You can't verify the spiritual aspects but you can verify the historical aspects. When you check up on the parts that can be checked out (the historical) and they don't check out then there is no reason to trust the message that you can't check out.

The same applies to a witness. If a witness gives false information that can be verified should you trust the other information that he gives that can't be independently verified? Of course not.

This is not what I asked you Billyray---I did not ask for your opinion on this. I asked you if there was one aspect of the Book of Mormon that could be proven historically correct, would that be enoug proof for you?

[Billyray]

I asked you if there was one aspect of the Book of Mormon that could be proven historically correct, would that be enoug proof for you?

To me the fact that the history is false proves that the book of mormon is false.

[BigJulie]

No go back and look at what I said. I believe Jesus is God based on independent eye witness evidence from multiple eye witnesses from multiple individual books written and different times and places. Because of this testimony I believe Jesus is God and as God he has validated the writings of the OT.

Okay, so what you have is someone from a time forward from the events (even though there are no older m****cripts pre-Moses) who verifies what was said by an older prophet, right?

So, how is it that you rely on these "eye-witnesses"? What would happen to your eye-witness account if you found that that they were changed over time and that the original eye-witness accounts were not the same as the later accounts?

Remember, I am not pointing this stuff out because I do not believe in the Bible---but merely to show that the criticisms you level at my faith are also being leveled at yours. Hence, once you open the door for the need of "historical proof" rather than faith, you open the door to athiesm.


First, people ***ume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it....

Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write.

Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100.

For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative.

In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side.

Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/29/my-take-the-3-biggest-biblical-misconceptions/

So, once again---if an "eye-witness" account is the reason for your faith, what happens when a person begins to question this "eye-witness" account?

[BigJulie]

To me the fact that the history is false proves that the book of mormon is false.

I didn't ask you that. I asked if you one aspect could be proven true, would that be enough to convince you all of it is true?

[Billyray]

I didn't ask you that. I asked if you one aspect could be proven true, would that be enough to convince you all of it is true?

If the history is false then it is easy because this proves the book false, which is the case for the book of mormon. The flip side is not as easy. If the history is true then you have to evaluate the message just like you would for the Bible which involves both ***essment of the message, its consistency with the teachings of the Bible and a measure of faith.

[Billyray]

So, how is it that you rely on these "eye-witnesses"? What would happen to your eye-witness account if you found that that they were changed over time and that the original eye-witness accounts were not the same as the later accounts?

What you are now asking about is can you trust the m****cripts? And my answer is that you can.

What evidence do you have that they are inaccurate? And what textual variant changes any NT doctrine?

[Billyray]

Remember, I am not pointing this stuff out because I do not believe in the Bible-

Mormons have a love hate relationship with the Bible. On the one hand you believe it because it is one of your own scriptures. But on the other hand you have to try and discredit it so so you can provide some doubt as to why your teachings are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible.

[BigJulie]

If the history is false then it is easy because this proves the book false, which is the case for the book of mormon. The flip side is not as easy. If the history is true then you have to evaluate the message just like you would for the Bible which involves both ***essment of the message, its consistency with the teachings of the Bible and a measure of faith.

You still did not answer my question. I will wait unti you do.

[BigJulie]

What you are now asking about is can you trust the m****cripts? And my answer is that you can.

What evidence do you have that they are inaccurate? And what textual variant changes any NT doctrine?

Billyray, I am not going to argue one way or the other with you regarding the accuracy of the transcripts. I am just showing you that if an "eye-witness" account is what you base your faith on, there are those out there who are ripping apart that foundation. You may go to bat and argue with them about why you are right and they are wrong. But, if you ask someone to have faith because of an "eye-witness" account, then they may as likely believe the side of the argument that is against you and thereby lose their faith.

[BigJulie]

Mormons have a love hate relationship with the Bible. On the one hand you believe it because it is one of your own scriptures. But on the other hand you have to try and discredit it so so you can provide some doubt as to why your teachings are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible.

Please do not put thoughts in my mind or try to attempt to read my heart. You are stereotyping here a whole group based on your own prejudices.

[Billyray]

You still did not answer my question. I will wait unti you do.

Here is my answer. You must have missed it.

If the history is false then it is easy because this proves the book false, which is the case for the book of mormon. The flip side is not as easy. If the history is true then you have to evaluate the message just like you would for the Bible which involves both ***essment of the message, its consistency with the teachings of the Bible and a measure of faith.

[Billyray]

Please do not put thoughts in my mind or try to attempt to read my heart. You are stereotyping here a whole group based on your own prejudices.

Then you would be wise to not try to denigrate the Bible in your attempts to prop up Mormonism.

[BigJulie]

Here is my answer. You must have missed it.

Billyray---you did not answer my question still. My question is that if ONE thing was proven accurate, would you then consider the whole thing accurate?

[Billyray]

Billyray, I am not going to argue one way or the other with you regarding the accuracy of the transcripts.
That is the heart of the argument as to why Mormonism doesn't line up with the Bible.

[BigJulie]

Then you would be wise to not try to denigrate the Bible in your attempts to prop up Mormonism.

Once again--a reply that is simply nothing more than a stereotype. I am not denigrating the Bible. Remember, I started this whole discussion as to WHY I believe the Bible and the criteria I base it on.

Now, remember the discussion of this thread is why Mormons become athiest. So, now the question becomes what is YOUR criteria for believing the Bible and I gave the example the earth being created in 6 days and from there YOU said that you have "eye-witness" and THAT is why you believe it.

So, now my question is---what happens when someone does not believe there is an eye-witness account based on scholarly arguments (which I showed you) that these eye-witness accounts are not accurate? What then Billyray? NOT for you, but for someone who you have just said this is how you know and now THEY believe the person who argues against the "eye-witness" accounts given by using historical evidence.

[BigJulie]

That is the heart of the argument as to why Mormonism doesn't line up with the Bible.

This discussion is not about Mormonism nor evangelicalism---this discussion is why Mormons might become athiests. You keep throwing in this discussion your standard stereotyped belief regarding us---but it has nothing to do with what happens when YOU rely on an "eye-witness" account for your testimony and the person listening to your arguments then begins to question based on scholarly questioning of the eye-witness accounts accuracy. What then? What do you tell the person then?

[Billyray]

So, now the question becomes what is YOUR criteria for believing the Bible and gave the example the earth being created in 6 days and from there YOU said that you have "eye-witness" and THAT is why you believe it.


You are the one who brought up the 6 days of creation not me. And who is capable of knowing how the universe was created using any sort of proof that you require?

[Billyray]

Now, remember the discussion of this thread is why Mormons become athiest.

And you said the the same arguments that I use against Mormonism could be used against Christianity. Yet you have yet to validate this claim. I never once asked you about the 6 days of creation How about stepping up to the plate and proving your claim?

[BigJulie]

You are the one who brought up the 6 days of creation not me. And who is capable of knowing how the universe was created using any sort of proof that you require?

Okay---so--are you now saying that you can provide absolutely no proof regarding the creation? If that is the case, then how can you believe it? If you say an eye-witness account from the NT prophets...I then ask, but what if evidence makes others (not you) question the accuracy of this as there are those out there who make an argument against these eye-witness accounts?

[Billyray]

So, now my question is---what happens when someone does not believe there is an eye-witness account based on scholarly arguments (which I showed you) that these eye-witness accounts are not accurate?

There is no doubt that there are eye witness accounts. The issue is whether or not a person believes those accounts. The same goes for an eye witness on the stand. He can give us his testimony and it is up to each person to decide if they believe that witness or not.