The Other Side Of The Debate...

[Shelama]

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

Actually, yes, it is true. CFR: Christian and Mormon history. And there's nothing derogratory, bashing, or pejorative about saying so. It just is. Some Mormons acknowledge it with the only necessary and fully honest answer: "Yes, but so what?"

[altersteve]

Actually, yes, it is true. CFR: Christian and Mormon history.

CFR. You're going to have to be more specific than just "Christian and Mormon history." What specifically about Christian and Mormon history proves your claim that nobody ever converts because of a serious, informed, critical study? I happen to know of at least a few people who have, including myself. My own personal studies of the Book of Mormon and Church history, undoubtedly combined with the witness of the Holy Ghost, have led me to a firm knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His kingdom on earth. I was not already fully committed to this when I began this study.

So, yeah, CFR.

[altersteve]

In fact, I believe that a serious, honest, informed, critical study can only strengthen one's testimony or help one on the way to receiving said testimony.

[Shelama]

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

Perhaps I'm misinformed and you might clarify. Do Mormons believe that Moses wrote what are traditionally known as "The Books of Moses"? First Nephi, of course, speaks of the "five books of Moses" (1 Nephi 5:11; 19:32; ). Mark 12:26 refers to events in Exodus as in the book of Moses. (Also, from your lds.or: "But latter-day revelation confirms that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy ..."); admittedly, elsewhere, acknowledging an apparent Mormon belief that Moses used some other sources for at least Genesis... so there you go: he need not have opted for it at all.)

So I rephrase: before he converted to Mormonism, what was his thinking and how did he conclude about the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis" in his serious, in-depth, critical study of the Bible?

In any case, I'm more interested in his answer, as should you be also.

[Shelama]

CFR. You're going to have to be more specific than just "Christian and Mormon history." What specifically about Christian and Mormon history proves your claim that nobody ever converts because of a serious, informed, critical study? I happen to know of at least a few people who have, including myself. My own personal studies of the Book of Mormon and Church history, undoubtedly combined with the witness of the Holy Ghost, have led me to a firm knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His kingdom on earth. I was not already fully committed to this when I began this study.

So, yeah, CFR.

Actually, I believe the assertion has always been: "based on the conclusions of..."

No you don't and we both know you don't: you don't know anybody who converted to either Mormonism or Christianity based on the conclusions of serious, honest, critical Bible study. You, yourself, didn't and you acknowledge that you didn't: "...undoubtedly combined with the witness of the Holy Ghost"

I said nothing about "fully committed," of course. Committed, invested, and/or already believing.

Again, nobody comes into either Christianity nor Mormonism based on the conclusions of serious, critical study of the Bible. Nobody with serious, critical understanding of the Bible converts from UNBELIEF to BELIEF based on the conclusions of such study. There is nothing dishonorable, bashing, or pejorative in that statement.

Thanks.

[altersteve]

Perhaps I'm misinformed and you might clarify. Do Mormons believe that Moses wrote what are traditionally known as "The Books of Moses"? First Nephi, of course, speaks of the "five books of Moses" (1 Nephi 5:11; 19:32; ). Mark 12:26 refers to events in Exodus as in the book of Moses. (Also, from your lds.or: "But latter-day revelation confirms that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy ..."); admittedly, elsewhere, acknowledging an apparent Mormon belief that Moses used some other sources for at least Genesis... so there you go: he need not have opted for it at all.)

So I rephrase: before he converted to Mormonism, what was his thinking and how did he conclude about the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis" in his serious, in-depth, critical study of the Bible?

In any case, I'm more interested in his answer, as should you be also.

It is Church doctrine that Moses wrote about his life and experiences, as the scriptures say, but not that he wrote the so-called "five books of Moses" that are found in our modern (and even some ancient) copies of the Old Testament, or even that he wrote Joseph Smith's restoration of lost biblical text now found in the Book of Moses and other parts of the JST. It is my belief that the Torah was written by several authors, who may have drawn from the original writings of Moses, but that parts of it were later additions and other parts of Moses' original record are missing from our current Pentateuch.

Actually, I believe the assertion has always been: "based on the conclusions of..."

No you don't and we both know you don't: you don't know anybody who converted to either Mormonism or Christianity based on the conclusions of serious, honest, critical Bible study. You, yourself, didn't and you acknowledge that you didn't: "...undoubtedly combined with the witness of the Holy Ghost"

I said nothing about "fully committed," of course. Committed, invested, and/or already believing.

Again, nobody comes into either Christianity nor Mormonism based on the conclusions of serious, critical study of the Bible. Nobody with serious, critical understanding of the Bible converts from UNBELIEF to BELIEF based on the conclusions of such study. There is nothing dishonorable, bashing, or pejorative in that statement.

Thanks.

Except that it did with me, and several people I know, or know of. True, my belief in the gospel did not come exclusively from serious, critical study of the Bible, or of the Book of Mormon, or of Church history, but it did play a big part, and I have a feeling that I probably would not believe as strongly as I do if I did not involve myself (and continue to involve myself) in studying the scriptures and history of the Church as seriously, critically, and honestly as I could, in order to increase my understanding of the issues as much as possible. And I was not committed, invested, or already believing. I was raised in the Church, but I was having serious doubts about it. I'm not sure what I was, but I know for sure that in my heart I was not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. An intellectual study of the Church, its scriptures, and its history helped change that.

If you mean to say, of course, that nobody converts to Mormonism based exclusively on an intellectual study, then you're right. But you never put the word "exclusively" in there, so I can therefore completely reject your claim that "nobody comes into either Christianity nor Mormonism" as a result of "serious, critical study," of the Bible or anything else. My own knowledge, my experiences, and what the Spirit tells me proves you wrong.

If you did mean "exclusively," then "yeah, but so what?"

Edited December 30, 2011 by altersteve

[TAO]

Shelama, nobody changes their worldview whatsoever solely on serious, critical study. All changes of worldview also included trusting your instinct that the new is better than the old. What is significant is that serious, critical study was a part of what changed his worldview. Because that's the most that anybody can have for any change in opinion, regardless of what it is about =P.

EDIT: Altersteve, I think yah meant the last statement without the 'exclusively' in it. That's what you were trying to show... that there was no exclusion... your statement doesn't read that way. Sorry, just trying to help =).

Edited December 30, 2011 by TAO

[Shelama]

Shelma, nobody changes their worldview whatsoever solely on serious, critical study. All changes of worldview also included trusting your instinct that the new is better than the old. What is significant is that serious, critical study was a part of what changed his worldview. Because that's the most that anybody can have for any change in opinion, regardless of what it is about =P.

I've no interest, of course, in changing anybody's world or religious views, and don't dispute what you say

[altersteve]

Shelama, nobody changes their worldview whatsoever solely on serious, critical study. All changes of worldview also included trusting your instinct that the new is better than the old. What is significant is that serious, critical study was a part of what changed his worldview. Because that's the most that anybody can have for any change in opinion, regardless of what it is about =P.

EDIT: Altersteve, I think yah meant the last statement without the 'exclusively' in it. That's what you were trying to show... that there was no exclusion... your statement doesn't read that way. Sorry, just trying to help =).

Hopefully it sounds better now. Thanks TAO

[TAO]

I've no interest, of course, in changing anybody's world or religious views, and don't dispute what you say

Lol, don't worry bout it. I just jump on this one because I see it so often, in other places =P.

Edited December 30, 2011 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

I've been looking a long time for the rare exception that proves the rule, if such even exists.

Now there is TRUE evidence of a critical mind. Critically irrational that is.

"The exception that proves the rule". Uh huh.

[Shelama]

[On what God will say of one's own spiritual valiance]... I'd be content if He could just say to me, "Well, you weren't completely worthless." - Nathair

On a portable marquis outside a small church in Albuquerque, NM: Nobody is completely worthless: you can always serve as a horrible example.

[Shelama]

Now there is TRUE evidence of a critical mind. Critically irrational that is.

"The exception that proves the rule". Uh huh.

A figure of speech, of course, of which everybody knows the meaning: something if it exists at all, is vanishingly rare.

Of course, I've never made any claim for any superiority of critical thought. I merely make the observation, however one chooses to understand or ignore it. As someone else said, "Yeah, but so what?"

[mfbukowski]

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?

I am a social constructivist.

I don't care how many authors of the Pentateuch there were or if "Moses" was actually one of them or not, whoever he might have been. And of course the Bible was written by men. You think God took a quill in hand and wrote it? It was written by men who were "inspired" by another Man, God.

It is a fully human document, inspired by a human God The only way belief in the bible can be justified is by a spiritual experience, the same with the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

Of course, I've never made any claim for any superiority of critical thought. I merely make the observation, however one chooses to understand or ignore it. As someone else said, "Yeah, but so what?"

Yes, in our conversation so far, I know exactly what you mean.

[mfbukowski]

Shelama

Here, read this and tell me how it is relevant to your "Documentary Hypothesis"

http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_Reality

Edit: I am talking about the whole article but I find this particularly relevant:

Signs and language provide interoperability for the construction of everyday reality:“A sign [has the] explicit intention to serve as an index of subjective meanings … Language is capable of becoming the objective repository of vast accumulations of meaning and experience, which it can then preserve in time and transmit to following generations… Language also typifies experiences, allowing me to subsume them under broad categories in terms of which they have meaning not only to myself but also to my fellowmen”

Edited December 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[carol.crb8@gmail.cm]

Compassionate service.

[TAO]

On a portable marquis outside a small church in Albuquerque, NM: Nobody is completely worthless: you can always serve as a horrible example.

Haha, you should PM that one to Nathair. He'd laugh pretty well at it, I think XD.

[Shelama]

I am a social constructivist.

I don't care how many authors of the Pentateuch there were or if "Moses" was actually one of them or not, whoever he might have been. And of course the Bible was written by men. You think God took a quill in hand and wrote it? It was written by men who were "inspired" by another Man, God.

It is a fully human document, inspired by a human God The only way belief in the bible can be justified is by a spiritual experience, the same with the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for sharing, but the questions remain, especially in FAIR, which is so often self-consciously concerned with evidence and scholarship:

Why is it that either childhood indoctrination or profound Biblical ignorance are the only ways into Mormonism and Christianity? Are pre-requisites: that nobody with such truly serious, informed, honest, critical understanding of the Bible ever converts.

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 already invested, committed and/or believing conclude in favor of their claims of divinity, truth and historicity?

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 before baptism at least a modest understanding of the issues of critical Biblical scholarship (authorship, text analysis, historicity; comparative study of ancient culture, story and religion in the ancient 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?

These questions reflect considerations of evidence and scholarship, a FAIR concern. They stand alone and are not meant to denigrate, disparage or dismiss the "spiritual experience." Nor bash nor dismiss any religion or faith. My study of both Christianity and Mormonism reveals that nobody ever concludes for the divinity or substantial historicity of the Bible based on the conclusions of serious critical study unless... And that nobody who has critical understanding ever...etc, etc.

For years I've been looking for an example, an exception. If not from FAIR and it's volumes of scholarly, annotated bibliographies, then where?

[Shelama]

Shelama

Here, read this and tell me how it is relevant to your "Documentary Hypothesis"

http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_Reality

Edit: I am talking about the whole article but I find this particularly relevant:

It's not my hypothesis, of course, but only a one tiny example of the numerous Bibical issues which critical study and knowledge and understanding of the Bible entail. I can find no relevance in either your article or the quote as to why people who undertake and achieve such knowledge & understanding never convert from unbelief to either Christianity or Mormonism. I see no relevance to the fact that either childhood indoctrination or a state of profound Biblical ignorance are pre-requisites for entering into either of them. Perhaps you'll enlighten me?

[Bernard Gui]

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

Unlike the rest of Christianity, Mormons do not have to rely on the Bible. In fact, Mormonism could go on just fine if there were

no Bible at all.

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.

At what point does one say, "I have completed an honest, serious, critical study of the Bible, and I am now prepared

to be a Christian or a Mormons"?

Bernard

[altersteve]

Why is it that either childhood indoctrination or profound Biblical ignorance are the only ways into Mormonism and Christianity? Are pre-requisites: that nobody with such truly serious, informed, honest, critical understanding of the Bible ever converts.

CFR, again. You'll have to be more specific than just "Christian and Mormon history." Please give us specific examples from Christian and Mormon history that proves that nobody with a serious, informed, honest, critical understanding of the Bible would ever convert to Christianity or, particularly, Mormonism.

If you are unable to provide proper examples or references, then please retract your statement.

Edited December 30, 2011 by altersteve

[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.

Actually, there was no rant, no pejorative, nor anything even controversial. Childhood indoctrination is only one way into Christianity or Mormonism. The other is in profound ignorance of the Bible. Concerning Mormon Biblical scholars, I've talked to a number of them in various places, including FAIR and BYU. So far, none of them can connect me to a scholar (or anybody else) who did not come into either Christianity or into Mormonism either thru childhood indoctrination or in a state of profound Biblical ignorance. They've not been able to connect me to one whoever converted from unbelief to belief based on the conclusions of serious, honest, critical Bible study.

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

What do you consider serious, informed, critical study of the Bible to entail?

Thanks

[Shelama]

CFR, again. You'll have to be more specific than just "Christian and Mormon history." Please give us specific examples from Christian and Mormon history that proves that nobody with a serious, informed, honest, critical understanding of the Bible would ever convert to Christianity or, particularly, Mormonism.

If you are unable to provide proper examples or references, then please retract your statement.

That's just it. THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES in either Christian or Mormon history of anyone ever converting from unbelief to belief based on the conclusions of honest, serious, informed, critical Bible study. Nobody in FAIR and nobody at BYU and nobody anyplace else can produce one. They don't exist.

There's nothing to retract.

[Duncan]

That's just it. THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES in either Christian or Mormon history of anyone ever converting from unbelief to belief based on the conclusions of honest, serious, informed, critical Bible study. Nobody in FAIR and nobody at BYU and nobody anyplace else can produce one. They don't exist.

There's nothing to retract.

haven't really been following this whole issue but does this lady count? I don't know if anyone would read the Bible in the way you prescribe if they weren't believers in the first place, maybe not in the Church but she went from something and read the Bible in your way and joined the Church, just my 2 cents!

http://www.holyfetch...ude_Specht.html

here is more about that lady

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/03/gertrud-specht/

Edited December 30, 2011 by Duncan