The Other Side Of The Debate...

[LeSellers]

I am going to give you one personal session because if you ever post like this again you will be escorted off the board. First, you will be respectful while expressing disagreement. We do not allow religion bashing here and that means all religions. If you have accusations produce evidence. CFR means "call for references". If you do not supply them you are out of the discussion. That rule is to prevent what you have just done in your first post.

I suggest you read the board rules and spend some time getting the feel of the place before you continue. We are always glad to have new posters no matter what their viewpoint but we do expect them to be courteous.

Once again we are denied the power to rep a richly deserving post because by one of our mods.

Lehi

What?

Edited December 30, 2011 by Minos

[Shelama]

What is your concept or definition of childhood indoctrination? Does teaching a child to believe uncritically represent indoctrination? What is your concept of serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible, and does absence of it not equal profound ignorance of the Bible? Can a person memorize the Bible in its entirety and quote or recite it at will and still be profoundly ignorant of it?

It's clear in the history of Christianity that one a person is committed and invested, one can, indeed, indulge in such study and retain their faith. It's also true that an almost proselyte on the verge of conversion is already heavily invested.

[zerinus]

What is your concept or definition of childhood indoctrination? Does teaching a child to believe uncritically represent indoctrination? What is your concept of serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible, and does absence of it not equal profound ignorance of the Bible? Can a person memorize the Bible in its entirety and quote or recite it at will and still be profoundly ignorant of it?

It's clear in the history of Christianity that one a person is committed and invested, one can, indeed, indulge in such study and retain their faith. It's also true that an almost proselyte on the verge of conversion is already heavily invested.

I am still puzzled by your motivation here. You have not replied directly to any of the posters who have replied to your post, and it seems to me that you are just talking to yourself rather than to us.

[altersteve]

What is your concept or definition of childhood indoctrination?

What does this have to do with anything?

Does teaching a child to believe uncritically represent indoctrination?

No.

What is your concept of serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible . . .

Studying the Bible by means of the Spirit. It does not have to be a scholarly study.

. . . and does absence of it not equal profound ignorance of the Bible?

No, absence of "serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible" does not necessarily result in "profound ignorance" of it.

Can a person memorize the Bible in its entirety and quote or recite it at will and still be profoundly ignorant of it?

Yes.

It's clear in the history of Christianity that one a person is committed and invested, one can, indeed, indulge in such study and retain their faith. It's also true that an almost proselyte on the verge of conversion is already heavily invested.

The same is true in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite your implication otherwise.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the thread topic, though.

Edited December 29, 2011 by altersteve

[Deborah]

What is your concept or definition of childhood indoctrination?

What is yours? Parents should teach correct principles; is this indoctrination. Not necessarily

.

Does teaching a child to believe uncritically represent indoctrination?

I suppose if that is what someone does but I don't know anyone who does. We in the church are in fact taught to study and pray and get our own answers. I always encouraged my children to read and study and asked questions, and the seminaries and institutes of the church are also places for this.

What is your concept of serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible, and does absence of it not equal profound ignorance of the Bible?

"Profound ignorance"? Not necessarily. However, it is always of value to study the history and customs of the time to better understand the Bible. What do you mean by informed, critical study?

You seem to have a bias which presupposes that you felt you were indoctrinated. Having grown up in a non-religious home I certainly wasn't and had to learn everything on my own. Transferring your biases to others makes for an uncritical, dishonest conclusion.

[mfbukowski]

Why is it that childhood indoctrination and profound Biblical ignorance are the only ways into Mormonism and Christianity?

Why is it that from the honest, informed, critical study of a common body of evidence regarding the Bible and/or the BoMormon and BoAbraham, ONLY those people who are deeply committed and invested conclude in favor of their claims of truth and divinity?

Why is it that honest, informed, critical study of these texts often lead people to de-convert and leave their faith but never result in conversion from Unbelief to Belief?

What would happen to Mormonism if doctrine and policy was that parents should teach their children to acquire both critical thinking skills and education, including a broad and critical investigation of the Bible, and attain to an age of full intellectual accountability, before being taught the Bible and Mormonism, the BOM, and "only true church," and then allowed to make their own informed decision about belief and baptism?

What would happen if the Mormon policy was that all missionaries and all of their contacts should have at least a modest understanding of Biblical issues (authorship, text analysis, historicity, story in the ancient world; comparative study of ancient culture, story and religion in the Levant; translation and transmission history; Jewish v. Christian translations, interpretation and usage of Hebrew scripture; Gospel authorship & historicity; non-textual use of Hebrew scriptures by the Evangelists, etc, etc?

Why does the NT sound and read so much like the invention of a successful and living Christian messiah from out of a failed and dead Jewish messiah through the non-contextual use of Hebrew scripture and the whole-cloth invention of new, non-Jewish concepts of sin, atonement, messiah and salvation?

I was an atheist working on my master's in philosophy at a secular university when I converted due to a spiritual experience I had regarding the Book of Mormon.

There are many here who are well educated converts who have had similar experiences. The bottom line is that you had better be ready to do some discussion if you want to maintain that stance.

We have all heard that line many many times before. You have shown no understanding of Mormonism or Mormons whatsoever, so you better get some quickly if you come back.

[Shelama]

There was no rant, the comments were and are impeccably true, they weren't pejorative, and they're not even mildly controversial.

Another question: is it reasonable and rational from informed, honest, in-depth, critical study of the Bible to conclude that it's all man-made?

[Deborah]

is it reasonable and rational from informed, honest, in-depth, critical study of the Bible to conclude that it's all man-made?

Is it reasonable and rational from informed, honest, in-depth, critical study of the Bible to conclude that it's all as it purports to be: the word of God?

[Shelama]

CFRCFRCFRCFR

Why is it that some people expect to be taken seriously while making blanket accusations without much substance to them?

CFR: All of Christian history and all of Mormon history. The rare exemption that proves the rule, if any could be found, would be an interesting and welcome addition.

It would also be an interesting primary topic: Why does nobody with a serious, critical, informed understanding of the Bible and Biblical issues enter into Christianity or Mormonism? Does the honest, serious, critical study of the common body of Bible evidence support as rational and reasonable a conclusion that it's purely man-made? Other FAIR posters have openly acknowledge this to be so. So for those who engage that same serious, critical study and conclude that the evidence supports their faith, what is the common denominator.

[Shelama]

Is it reasonable and rational from informed, honest, in-depth, critical study of the Bible to conclude that it's all as it purports to be: the word of God?

I don't know. What I do know is that ONLY those who already have a pre-existing belief, investment and/or commitment conclude that it does. On the other hand, many believers, once they decide to undertake such study become former-believers.

[Shelama]

Wow! Your rant is so full of misinformation where does one begin. Since many of us are converts to Mormonism, and not even grounded in any church prior to that, one could hardly say we were indoctrinated. You are apparently unaware of how many Biblical scholars are on this forum or in the church.

Most people I know who do make informed critical study actually become more converted.

You really would be wise to know what you are talking about before making such statements.

There was no rant, nor anything pejorative or even mildly controversial. As for converts, the only people who convert to either Christianity or Mormonism are profoundly ignorant of the Bible. That's not a pejorative: innocent ignorance just is. Most Christians and Mormons don't really understand what honest, serious, critical study of the Bible even entails. And the ONLY people who conclude from such study in favor of the Bible as divine and substantially literal history are those who already have commitment, investment and/or belief.

I have met Mormons who are fully prepared to affirm that as true with the only response that is fully honest or necessary: "Yes, that's true, but so what?"

[Shelama]

I think that your first post in this forum would be better served if you would spend some time telling us something about yourself, your background, your motivation for posting here, and what you hope to gain or achieve by your participation.

By the way, I like your avatar image. It shows a good sense of color balance and image manipulation.

I like the avatar too, thanks. Somebody else gets the credit for the color balance and image processing.

[Deborah]

As for converts, the only people who convert to either Christianity or Mormonism are profoundly ignorant of the Bible.

Ridiculous. The reason I joined the LDS church is because I had studied the Bible.

[Shelama]

I am going to give you one personal session because if you ever post like this again you will be escorted off the board. First, you will be respectful while expressing disagreement. We do not allow religion bashing here and that means all religions. If you have accusations produce evidence. CFR means "call for references". If you do not supply them you are out of the discussion. That rule is to prevent what you have just done in your first post.

I suggest you read the board rules and spend some time getting the feel of the place before you continue. We are always glad to have new posters no matter what their viewpoint but we do expect them to be courteous.

It was with utmost respect (and even admiration for Mormons) that I posted comments that were totally non-pejorative and non-bashing comments (for neither Christianity nor Mormonism). They're really not even controversial.

CFR: All of Christian history. All of Mormon history.

I've been looking a long time for the rare exception that proves the rule, if such even exists. I've not found one from anybody else on FAIR. That the only way people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism is through childhood indoctrination or in profound if innocent Biblical ignorance is not a foreign concept to some Mormons. Some even admit it with the only response that is really needed: "Yes, but so what"?

[zerinus]

Another question: is it reasonable and rational from informed, honest, in-depth, critical study of the Bible to conclude that it's all man-made?

Yes. It is equally rational to conclude the opposite. People can "rationally" come to different conclusions.

[Duncan]

I like a lot of things in the Church, else I wouldn't be a member! I like that you are involved with people that you wouldn't normally associate with. I served a mission to a place that I knew almost nothing about prior to serving and things like that, callings, stretches you and I think that's good. The benefits of a mission are astounding IMO! I am a firm believer in that any virtue taken to the extreme can be a vice and I have seen that in the Church with many different ideas, programs. I know more inactive members then active and it bugs me. I have seen a lot of jarring things in the Church. Our Patriarch recently went inactive. I struggle with the idea of righteous priesthood leadership on occasion. I am working on that! I guess my own struggle in the Church is more personal then institutional and sometimes I just don't think I am good enough to be a member

[zerinus]

I don't know. What I do know is that ONLY those who already have a pre-existing belief, investment and/or commitment conclude that it does. On the other hand, many believers, once they decide to undertake such study become former-believers.

There is no possible way that you can "know" that, because it is not true.

[Shelama]

...and what you hope to gain or achieve by your participation.

An article recently in the Salt Lake Tribune explained that Mormon intellectualism is no joke. Sometime later an accidental link from another news source about something else landed me on FAIR. It seemed a reasonable place to explore the proposition that Mormon intellectualism is no joke. It seemed to me not unreasonable to explore a little bit about fundamental foundations. Like the Bible as the word of a god (or God), and substantially literal history.

If, as I have been told to me by FAIR members, that it is reasonable and rational to conclude from a critical study of the Bible and the common body of Biblical evidence that the Bible is man-made, then it seems to me that one can also conclude that Mormonism is also. Including the BoM and the BoAbraham). For instance, if you reasonably concludes from a careful, honest reading of Tanakh that neither Yahweh Elohim nor mankind created in his image (whatever that meant to the author) has any need, use or interest in the bloody sacrifice of Jesus for the atonement of sins, then one can rule out Mormonism. Likewise a virgin birth based on Isa 7; likewise Jesus as Jewish messiah; Jesus as fulfillment of Hebrew scripture; the empty tomb; the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus; the Gospels as reliable history or authored by eye-witnesses; etc, etc.

I've experienced a lot of different Mormon approaches to these issues and it was suggested that I try here. As for hopes, I'm hoping for enlightenment and prepared for confirmation.

[Shelama]

I am still puzzled by your motivation here. You have not replied directly to any of the posters who have replied to your post, and it seems to me that you are just talking to yourself rather than to us.

Some of us work. My motivation is to explore the proposition that Mormon intellectualism is no joke as explained by Gary James Bergera in the Salt Lake Tribune in September, 2011. A subsequent accidental link ended me up in FAIR at this seemed a reasonable place to look at basic, foundational things like the Bible as the word of a god (or God), whether or not translated correctly.

[Shelama]

What does this have to do with anything?

No.

Studying the Bible by means of the Spirit. It does not have to be a scholarly study.

No, absence of "serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible" does not necessarily result in "profound ignorance" of it.

Yes.

The same is true in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite your implication otherwise.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the thread topic, though.

Thank you.

[Shelama]

What do you mean by informed, critical study?

I'm going to invite your more knowledgeable colleagues and co-believers to answer that before I do. My experience suggests a range of answers, including from some people who understand.

[Shelama]

I was an atheist working on my master's in philosophy at a secular university when I converted due to a spiritual experience I had regarding the Book of Mormon.

There are many here who are well educated converts who have had similar experiences. The bottom line is that you had better be ready to do some discussion if you want to maintain that stance.

We have all heard that line many many times before. You have shown no understanding of Mormonism or Mormons whatsoever, so you better get some quickly if you come back.

And as an atheist working on your master's at a secular university when you converted, how would you rate your in-depth, critical study and understanding of the Bible. For instance, from numerous possible examples, what in your critical study of the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis" persuaded you to opt for a single author (Moses) for the Pentateuch?

I don't dispute nor even denigrate emotional, spiritual conversions, into any religion. But your example may bears on a significant point: when highly intelligent and educated people such as yourself convert, is it not in profound Biblical ignorance?

Edited December 30, 2011 by Shelama

[altersteve]

And as an atheist working on your master's at a secular university when you converted, how would you rate your in-depth, critical study and understanding of the Bible. For instance, from numerous possible examples, what in your critical study of the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis" persuaded you to opt for a single author (Moses) for the Pentateuch?

I don't dispute nor even denigrate emotional, spiritual conversions, into any religion. But your example may bears on a significant point: when highly intelligent and educated people such as yourself convert, is it in profound Biblical ignorance?

What makes you think he opts for a single author for the Pentateuch? Why would you assume that about him?

[Shelama]

Ridiculous. The reason I joined the LDS church is because I had studied the Bible.

And where you some other form of Christian before you became a Mormon, or did you convert from atheism? Or did you convert with your only Bible background being Mormon missionaries bearing a Christian translation and Christian interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures? Were you taught as a child in another faith that the Bible was the word of God, and did you more or less accept it as such?

Nobody said that converts to Christianity or to Mormonism don't study the Bible. Not at all. But there are different concepts of what truly serious, informed, honest, critical study of the Bible entails. Before I tell you more about what I've already quite explicitly said, I'd invite some of your co-believers to offer their understanding of what such study means.

Thank you.

[Shelama]

Yes. It is equally rational to conclude the opposite. People can "rationally" come to different conclusions.

Yes, indeed it is. But it's interesting and curious that, from a common body of evidence, the ONLY people who conclude that the Bible is of divine origin and substantially literal history are those who already have commitment, investment and/or belief that it is. On the other hand, many previously religious people who undertake such study de-convert. Some may continue to consider themselves in the Christian tradition and look to Jesus as guide in ethics, while rejecting, for instance, Jesus' death as atonement, Jesus as messiah; Jesus establishing the Christian church, etc.

But why does it never happen the other way? Why does nobody ever convert from UNBELIEF to BELIEF based on the conclusions of serious, critical study of the Bible and Bible evidence? (CFR: Christian and Mormon history)

What more is needed in the reasonable and rational rejection of Mormonism than the prior, reasonable and rational rejection of all of those Christian beliefs about the Bible and Jesus which Mormons share with all other Christians?