Fair Dinkum

And I'm seeing just the opposite, it is the believers that don't want to talk about it Again what I'm seeing is that these who are leaving are more than happy to talk about it but they are not interested in being preached to or told to read, pray and hold on. They've already come to their conclusion and have no desire to revisit LDS truth claims they no longer find believable. No one should rush this very difficult decision I think they are where they are as non believers because their concerns have been resolved. Now we can disagree on their conclusions but no one leaves the church because they believe the church is all it claims to be.

A member of our Stake High Council, just had two of his children, both in their twenties, resign. He is also currently employed in a very high profile position in the church. Were I to mention his name several here would recognize him. I just learned this today, so yes I've noticed this

Adam and Eve were figurative Biblical characters. They never existed as actual living human beings in other words they are fictional biblical characters. The fall also if it ever actually took place is also figurative and was not a literal event for how can an actual event take place when it involved fictional characters? This is all navel gazing or speculating on how many villages were on Tatooine

Nothing escapes you. Thanks, I've corrected my error

As I always thought it would https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/14/judge-tosses-out-james/

Excellent post. Again this is why I believe the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. Coming to this conclusion requires less mental gymnastics, jumps through hoola hoops and summer salts.

Impressive response. Well done. I enjoyed reading this.

Lindsey's articles are very interesting and I do recommended everyone read them. It is heavily dependent on a book by Nicholas Lund, but Lund's arguments in support of the authenticity of the long ending are inconsistent. Lund is guilty of using uneven standards in how he uses the evidence. For this reason, I tend to discount his conclusions. And because Lindsay is so dependent on Lund, it also colors his conclusions as well. At first read Lindsay has taken the same motivations to justify authenticity for the long ending that the early scribes took in writing it. Both recognize that the abrupt ending causes problems for the faith. As Lindsey stated: But Lindsay shares the same motivations for the apparent scribe who first wrote the long ending (assuming this is what happened) that the long ending is authentic because it completes the story and pares well with Luke and Mathew's versions. Lindsay also agues the long Endings authenticity because nearly 99% of Mark manuscript have the long ending. But this has never been a viable reason to accept its authenticity. In the analysis of textual data, it is not a popularity contest, the very veracity, tone, words used and consistency of language used matter more than how popular the long ending might have been among scribes. Lindsay also proposes various unsupported theories and conspiracies to support the authenticity of the long ending. I got the feeling that he was throwing multiple ideas on the wall to see what might stick in spite of the multiple reasons that it should not be considered authentic and original. With these Lindsey merely waves his hand and dismisses them outright despite these being the very reason the majority of Biblical scholars have rejected the long ending. Perhaps Lindsay's strongest argument in support of the authenticity of the long ending was use of external evidences. but even here he conveniently left out the dubious nature of Tatian's Diatessaron, I wonder why? As a side note, I couldn't help but find it ironic that an LDS apologist who slam's the early church fathers for their part in the Great Apostacy find these same early Christian fathers useful when it serves his purposes in supporting the authenticity of the long ending. So which is it? Are they credible or not? Some of Lindsay's argument were circular in nature. The Book of Mormon is true because the Book of Mormon says so. Over all this was an interesting read and I do recommend it to all interested in this subject. I do wish he hadn't relied so heavily on Lund for support of his position. Was it convincing? Probably not for me, but I will admit that for someone first being introduced to this subject, it could offer a safe harbor.

Thanks, I stand corrected on that particular chapter's author. I had seen other posters attribute those verses to Moroni, but when i double checked the first chapter of Mormon, it stated that Mormon was its author. I did not go further into the chapters we are discussing. Do you have a link to Lindsey's work on this subject. I would like to read it. Thanks.

I've long ago given up a literal interpretation of the scriptures, but now I find even a nuanced interpretation is problematic. No I do not believe that the gospels capture the exact words of Jesus. I'm no longer that naïve. I suspect that whoever the authors of the gospel were, they relied on oral histories, which are problematic in and of themselves, to represent teachings perhaps of themes Jesus might have taught. But no, none of the gospels contain the word for word teachings of Jesus. But right now my questions are not with the Bible, I will save them for another day, but with the Book of Mormon. Other than God magic, there is not a logical way that a 5th century man named Mormon could have received the words of the scribe who wrote these words, elevated them to the level that he felt Jesus uttered them and placed them in the Book of Mormon. The most logical solution is that Joseph Smith, not knowing of the problem with the long ending, merely copied them into his book when he was dictating the book. For me this is just further evidence of the Book of Mormon not being an actual historical record of an actual people but evidence of its 19th century authorship. The more I scratch away at the claims made by the book the more it points to this 19th century conclusion. The ramifications for this conclusion are difficult for me to want to accept but I made the decision to go wherever the truth led me irrespective of where that truth might lead.

I found this very interesting: I started this post because it wanted to gain additional insight as to how the long ending of Mark, a subject I have been aware of for some time but had left sitting on my mental shelf...an ending that was not original to Mark, could have found its way into Mormon's supposed writings in the Book of Mormon. As I inferred in my OP, there is no logical way that the long ending of Mark, an ending that was an effort by some scribe to harmonize Mark's original manuscript's short abrupt ending with the other gospels of Mathew, Luke and John, whose ending were more dramatic and faith promoting. So my original question remains, why would Mormon, assuming that he was a real actual person, add the long ending to his work, words that were not original to Mark, words that were not uttered by Jesus, words that were the creation of a scribe's attempt to harmonize Mark with the other gospels? And then I also ask, assuming Mormon received these words through revelation, why would Jesus elevate words he had not uttered, words created by some early Christian scribe? Honestly it makes no sense. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/01/an-master-thesis-on-endings-of-mark-by.html

on second thought I’ll delete

But where is your proof that the long ending was removed and then reinserted? Again you’re making unsupported assertions. I’m fine with you speculating, just state that you’re speculating instead of stating your speculations as if they represent the truth.

You are aware that the Diatessaron that we have today is a translation of a translation of an 10th century Arabic translation of the Diatessaron, rIght? In other words very problematic

Pure unsupported speculation