The Other Side Of The Debate...

[TAO]

Shelama, reading the Biblical texts doesn't often lead to de-conversion. It only leads to it some of the time. For some, it leads to conversion.

[altersteve]

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.

You mean there are no examples of one anyone converting from unbelief to belief based exclusively on the conclusions of honest, serious, informed, critical Bible study. Because it's knowledge received via revelation from God that converts people, not knowledge received from any kind of intellectual study of the Bible.

But yes, there is something to retract: that nobody has ever converted based on an honest, serious, critical Bible study. Such a study can certainly help lead a person to conversion, as it has done for many people. It can also strengthen your testimony significantly, as it has done for me and several others. It is just that nobody converts based exclusively on such study. That's what you're not getting. Until you understand the whole idea behind personal revelation from God, then you're not going to understand anything about LDS belief, and it doesn't seem like you understand personal revelation at all.

Your claim that nobody with an honest, serious, informed, critical understanding of the Bible would ever become a Christian, and/or join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is completely and absolutely absurd. Many people have and many people will. Because if God speaks to you and tells you that the Church is true, you can't really help but believe Him, no matter how much you understand about the Bible or anything else. Knowledge received from God about truly important issues like the gospel of Jesus Christ is infinitely more important than knowledge about whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

I think this is the end of our discussion. Not only are you talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic, but you've also proven to me how little you really understand what you're talking about. Have a nice day.

Edited December 30, 2011 by altersteve

[Shelama]

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.

That may or may not be true but it's also irrelevant to the fact that nobody ever comes to that conclusion, or that testimony, based on the conclusions of truly serious, critical study and understanding of the Bible. The only people for whom the evidence supports that conclusion are those who already have commitment, investment and belief that the Bible is the word of God (whether or not translated correctly). That's not a bash or a slam or a dismissal, it just is. Those already "on their way" already have significant investment, commitment and/or belief. Often that involves near total commitment and belief in the Bible as the word of God, with their real concern being whether or not the Mormon take on it is true. Again, not a slam; it's how it is. No apologies or defense needed.

[Shelama]

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.

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

Imagine Joseph Smith in either 1830 or today, or imagine a Mormon missionary today, trying to proselytize Mormonism and the Book of Mormon if there were no Bible and had been no Bible.

As far as "what point," I'm unaware of such a point in either theory or practice.

[Shelama]

You mean there are no examples of one anyone converting from unbelief to belief based exclusively on the conclusions of honest, serious, informed, critical Bible study. Because it's knowledge received via revelation from God that converts people, not knowledge received from any kind of intellectual study of the Bible.

But yes, there is something to retract: that nobody has ever converted based on an honest, serious, critical Bible study. Such a study can certainly help lead a person to conversion, as it has done for many people. It can also strengthen your testimony significantly, as it has done for me and several others. It is just that nobody converts based exclusively on such study. That's what you're not getting. Until you understand the whole idea behind personal revelation from God, then you're not going to understand anything about LDS belief, and it doesn't seem like you understand personal revelation at all.

Your claim that nobody with an honest, serious, informed, critical understanding of the Bible would ever become a Christian, and/or join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is completely and absolutely absurd. Many people have and many people will. Because if God speaks to you and tells you that the Church is true, you can't really help but believe Him, no matter how much you understand about the Bible or anything else. Knowledge received from God about truly important issues like the gospel of Jesus Christ is infinitely more important than knowledge about whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

I think this is the end of our discussion. Not only are you talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic, but you've also proven to me how little you really understand what you're talking about. Have a nice day.

Adieu.

[Shelama]

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://timesandseaso...gertrud-specht/

Actually, the Bible is endlessly interesting and of huge importance in the Western world. It's a priceless literary, historical and cultural artifact and has been the subject of critical study and commentary since even before Spinoza. In addition to a lot of Christians, there are also a lot of former-Christians and secularists who find the study of the Bible important. For some of them, the origins of Christianity from out of the Jewish life and Roman death of Jesus and the non-contextual use of Hebrew scripture is ever interesting and challenging.

No, Gertrude Specht's story, as interesting, heartwarming and inspiring as it is, doesn't count: "When she was almost 75, she met the Mormons. “I was a good Catholic,” she said, “but I found myself in a crisis. I just couldn't accept certain doctrines. Then I heard about the Mormons. They showed me what I felt to be right, so I was baptized.” ( http://timesandseaso...gertrud-specht/ )

Thanks

Edited December 30, 2011 by Shelama

[Calm]

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.

Please post the responses you received from FAIR members that you believe support your thesis.

[Calm]

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.

What would satisfy you as an example? Since it appears you find a statement of something as a fact sufficient to establish something as a fact, if I were to say that I personally know at least one person who converted to Christianity from agnosticism due to an extremely thorough and deeply researched study of the Bible, that should be sufficient, right? Edited December 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

Imagine Joseph Smith in either 1830 or today, or imagine a Mormon missionary today, trying to proselytize Mormonism and the Book of Mormon if there were no Bible and had been no Bible.

That is very easy to imagine. Even without the Book of Mormon I can imagine it. The original 12 apostles had

no Bible other than their Jewish scriptures. Conversion results from communication with with the Holy Spirit.

There is no other way. That can happen with or without a Bible handy.

As far as "what point," I'm unaware of such a point in either theory or practice.

Then there is no way to give you a satisfactory answer. At some point one must be

satisfied with the quest. If there is no such point, your question is a tautology at best,

or simply meaningless.

Bernard

Edited December 30, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Shelama, is there any religious belief that you believe people will commit to solely on the basis of studying in an academic, thorough fashion its sacred writings?

[zerinus]

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.

There is a valid point somewhere in what you say, in that a purely academic study of the Bible by itself will not lead someone to a conviction (or testimony as we call it) that it is of supernatural origin, or that its miraculous claims are true. We believe that that can only be obtained by a witness of the Holy Ghost. So you are really barking up the wrong tree contending to a Mormon audience that such a study alone will not lead to such a conviction; because Mormonism does not really claim that it does. Mormonism maybe a bit unique in the Christian tradition in making such a claim. You can really know that the Bible is true in the same way that you can know that the Book of Mormon is true, and that is by a testimony of the Holy Ghost. An academic study of the Bible alone cannot give you such a witness; nor can it prevent you from obtaining one.

[Stargazer]

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.

You're making this assertion as if it were a settled fact. But if I were to ask you to prove it, you couldn't, simply because it's a negative. I willl admit that some negatives CAN be proven. For instance, I can prove my name is not Bill, but I have to do so positively, by proving what my name actually is. But you're stuck out in the land of never-never, because you can't prove your assertion.

All that being said, however, I happen to agree with your assertion, that there are probably none who have "convert[ed] from unbelief to belief based on the conclusions of honest, serious, informed, critical Bible study."

I say this because conversion utterly requires personal revelation from God. Anyone who converts based entirely upon an intellectual conclusion will deconvert for the same reason, and probably in very short order.

And why should there be any who have converted in such a way as you describe? It's completely beside the point.

[Deborah]

But there are different concepts of what truly serious, informed, honest, critical study of the Bible entails.

Which is why I asked what your concept is and you answered you'd like other more scholarly Mormons to answer.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have a question for defenders of the faith (Apologists, TBMs, future General Authorities, etc) and another question for critics of the LDS faith (former-mo's, never-mo's, anti-mo's, devils advocates, fringers, etc)

I am not sure if I fit any of those models.

[thesometimesaint]

Shelama:

So we were either brain washed as children or we're stupid.

[TAO]

That may or may not be true but it's also irrelevant to the fact that nobody ever comes to that conclusion, or that testimony, based on the conclusions of truly serious, critical study and understanding of the Bible. The only people for whom the evidence supports that conclusion are those who already have commitment, investment and belief that the Bible is the word of God (whether or not translated correctly).

Erm... you can't state this for certain... it's No True Scotsman Fallacy. Sorry =P.

I'm also pretty sure there are others like me, who gained their testimony of the Bible through the Book of Mormon - and not the other way around.

That's not a bash or a slam or a dismissal, it just is. Those already "on their way" already have significant investment, commitment and/or belief.

No, actually not. There is a moment of change... a moment of decision you have to make... a hurdle you have to overcome. Rarely do you just 'believe'. You just, at some point, let your doubt yield to faith. It is rarely significant. Most of the time, it is a personal choice that happens at a moment you don't expect.

Often that involves near total commitment and belief in the Bible as the word of God, with their real concern being whether or not the Mormon take on it is true. Again, not a slam; it's how it is. No apologies or defense needed.

Talk to mfb. He was previously an atheist. Or talk to members who converted from religions who didn't accept the Bible as inspired. I think you will find that many of them trusted the Book of Mormon before they trusted the Bible. It isn't that uncommon... the Book of Mormon has... something special about it... that makes us trust it =).

Edited December 30, 2011 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

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?

I asked you a question and you failed to answer and simply re-post the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over..... get the idea? See how much fun that is to read the same thing again and again without variation?

Maybe that's is why you think as you do. You are preaching and stuck in a rut.

Bye.

[Hestia]

Why does nobody with a serious, critical, informed understanding of the Bible and Biblical issues enter into Christianity or Mormonism?

You keep giving this as your opinion but it is hardly fact and you need to answer CFR's with specific information and documentation.

[Stargazer]

Have we reached our quota of insufferable, self-certain psuedointellectuals, yet? Just curious.

[LeSellers]

Have we reached our quota of insufferable, self-certain psuedointellectuals, yet? Just curious.

Apparently not.

Good thing for "Shelama" that I'm not a mod: he'd have been outta here in half a heartbeat. I have little tolerance for shoulders bedecked with obvious chips.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

I think Shelamo is just kind of stuck somehow.

[Shelama]

Shelama:

So we were either brain washed as children or we're stupid.

That's your conclusion not mine. I never said brainwashed and never said anything at all about stupid. I merely point out what is: the only ways into either Christianity or Mormonism are either childhood indoctrination or in profound ignorance of the Bible. The significance is another question. Personally, I don't see that either brainwashing or stupidity figure in at all, nor why one would posit either one.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Shelama

[LeSellers]

I merely point out what is: the only ways into either Christianity or Mormonism are either childhood indoctrination or in profound ignorance of the Bible.

It is not at all clear that "the only ways into ... Mormonism are either childhood indoctrination or in profound ignorance of the Bible."

That's nothing more than an assertion (however repetitive), and you have not at all responded meaningfully to any of the calls for reference issued to you.

Further, we have had at least a couple of people who have, by their personal histories refuted your position. Your hand waving and sophomoric responses to their accounts do your position no good.

Were you to say that "some (or many) who enter The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do so by way of having been indoctrinated as children or with little or no biblical scholarship" we might not be so put off by your tone and lack of respect. As it is, however, I am surprised the mods have not booted you off this topic, at the very least.

I can assure you that my own path to my present, fully-accepting and believing position has taken me through a myriad of studies of the Bible, other faith traditions, and questioning what I have received from " the fathers". I am neither weaker in my faith nor what I was fifty years ago, and my study has been profitable for me, my wife, and our family. Others, too may have benefited from what I have learned and offered them. I believe I can count a half dozen or more who have done so, excluding those whom I taught while serving my mission in France and those in formal church class settings.

Lehi

[Calm]

Have we reached our quota of insufferable, self-certain psuedointellectuals, yet? Just curious.

It would seem that we have at least added one to our collection since Shelama refuses to actually engage with anyone's questions and just continues to pontificate as if he was saying something noteworthy.

It is hardly a shocker to any devout Christian, whether lds or not, that conversion requires the Spirit foremost and may or may not take place along side a deep and thorough understanding of the Bible or Book of Mormon. Christ pointed to the children and said as such are the kingdom of heaven, he approached his first disciples and demanded they come with him then and there, not after a time they had to study and dissect his claims; that is the model that is taught in the scriptures, including in the Hebrew section. All must seek out the Spirit for true conversion, knowledge alone, no matter how profound, will not bring one face to face with God.

I will repeat my question in an attempt to get Shelama to clarify the purpose of his post as I doubt it was just to point out something we are aware of already.....is there any religion that claims one can find its truth claims solely through a profound study of it's sacred writings?

Edited December 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Shelama]

You keep giving this as your opinion but it is hardly fact and you need to answer CFR's with specific information and documentation.

My perusal of FAIR is that when one makes false claims or assertions, the response typically (since FAIR is, at least in part, dedicated to scholarship and evidence) is to produce an annotated bibliography exposing the error. My studies have found no evidence that anyone with serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible ever converts to belief in the Bible based on the conclusions of such study. The only people who conclude in the affirmative are those who already have belief, investment and commitment. It's simple. It's not bashing and it's not pejorative. The CFR is Christian and Mormon history: there are no examples of anybody converting from UNBELIEF to BELIEF based on the conclusions from such study of a common body of evidence. Why? Why do people who have critical knowledge and understanding never convert based on the strength of the evidence alone? What about that evidence leads to the conclusion that the Bible is man-made unless one already believes that it's not?

This being FAIR, there are people here who know what serious, honest, critical study of the Bible entails. They will also admit that no Mormon missionary and no missionary contact or convert has either that study or understanding. I'm not telling them anything they don't already know. They also know that "childhood religious indoctrination" is not a pejorative, it's just a human practice. It just is. For those children BIC, that's what happens.

As it's rational, based on the evidence, to conclude the Bible is purely man-made, it also rational to conclude that Mormonism is also since its fundamental foundation is Bible concepts not unique to either Joseph Smith or the BoM: the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; atonement of Christ for salvation; sin needing a blood sacrifice; the Gospels as literal history; the virgin birth and empty tomb; Christian theology and belief as a continuation or fulfillment of the OT; Jesus establishing a church; the apostles continuing the church that Jesus established. etc, etc.

Numerous people here acknowledge, and almost acknowledge, that it really has nothing to do with evidence, that it's the Spirit and only the Spirit. And that's very true. But that doesn't answer the original questions of why the evidence itself is not compelling unless one already believes. For a FAIR committed to the scholarly study of evidence, that seems worth noting.

What in the common body of evidence related to the Bible and Bible text compels or even strongly suggests a conclusion that it is of divine origin and not entirely man-made? What in that text and evidence argues against it being purely man-made?

Edited December 30, 2011 by Shelama