My Take on Why Mormons Become Athiests

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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.

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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.

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is the problem with the book of mormon.

Only for the spiritually blind.

Originally Posted by Billyray

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.

Originally Posted by Billyray

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.

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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

A weak witness.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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