The Other Side Of The Debate...

[thesometimesaint]

Shelama:

Don't dissemble. I know the meanings of words just as well as you.

BTW I wasn't raised in the Church and not one of my parents, or sibs is LDS. I was Agnostic with a thirst for knowledge for 20 years before converting.

[Calm]

If you are thinking this board is FAIR, you would be wrong though a few FAIR members post here.....fewer and fewer as time goes on. If you want to converse with "FAIR" you need to do so through their email.

[mfbukowski]

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?

This is getting really kind of sad. Maybe we should just leave her alone. Seriously. I mean it is the exact same wording each time.

Edited December 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Shelama]

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?

FAIR is committed, at least in part, to a scholarly consideration of evidence. What in the evidence of the Bible compels or even strongly suggests that it's of divine origin? What argues against it being purely man-made? On what basis do people come to conclude or believe that the Bible is the word of a god (or God)? From a serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible?

[Calm]

"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 am a member of FAIR and I will not admit that there has never been a Mormon missionary or contact/convert that hasn't had a profound knowledge and understanding of the Bible through a serious, honest, critical study of the book and it's context. I've personally known quite a few.

[Shelama]

If you are thinking this board is FAIR, you would be wrong though a few FAIR members post here.....fewer and fewer as time goes on. If you want to converse with "FAIR" you need to do so through their email.

I've had many email discussions with FAIR members initiated through questions submitted directly to FAIR, plus discussions and in the FAIRblog. FAIR administrators suggested the FAIR forums as the place to be.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Shelama

[mfbukowski]

FAIR is committed, at least in part, to a scholarly consideration of evidence. What in the evidence of the Bible compels or even strongly suggests that it's of divine origin? What argues against it being purely man-made? On what basis do people come to conclude or believe that the Bible is the word of a god (or God)? From a serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible?

I have already answered this, and you refuse to reply to me. That seems to be true for everyone.

[LeSellers]

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

Minos sayeth: What?

There are some times when a post from a Mod really needs to have a dozen or so rep points. Alas! but that is not permitted.

Lehi

[Calm]

FAIR is committed, at least in part, to a scholarly consideration of evidence. What in the evidence of the Bible compels or even strongly suggests that it's of divine origin? What argues against it being purely man-made? On what basis do people come to conclude or believe that the Bible is the word of a god (or God)? From a serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible?

Honestly, your history of posting makes me wonder if you are capable of even trying to understand what that kind of study actually involves since you seem unwilling to even answer a simple question. Do you even read any of the posts written to you as there is often a significant disconnect between what they are asking and relating and then your alleged commentary that follows it. You sound like you are following a set script....something that will most definitely not yield anything other than a shallow understanding and most definitely will not promote any sort of scholarly consideration of evidence.

Edited December 31, 2011 by calmoriah

[Shelama]

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

This, however, does not address your entry into Mormonism nor the Bible as the word of God.

[Shelama]

Bye.

Adieu

[Hestia]

Adieu

And we bid you adieu on this thread as you apparently are unable to comprehend CFR and people are getting frustrated.

[Shelama]

Honestly, your history of posting makes me wonder if you are capable of even understanding what that kind of study actually involves since you seem unable to even answer a simple question. Do you even read any of the posts written to you as there is often a significant disconnect between what they are asking and relating and then your alleged commentary that follows it. You sound like you are following a set script....something that will most definitely not yield anything other than a shallow understanding and most definitely will not promote any sort of scholarly consideration of evidence.

I've not yet seen a post that reflects an understanding of what true, serious, honest, critical study of the Bible and Bible evidence entails. I know there are FAIR members who do understand the concept. And who understand why it is that ONLY those who have some pre-existing belief or investment or commitment find that the evidence supports a conclusion that the Bible is not man-made.

[LeSellers]

FAIR is committed, at least in part, to a scholarly consideration of evidence. What in the evidence of the Bible compels or even strongly suggests that it's of divine origin? What argues against it being purely man-made? On what basis do people come to conclude or believe that the Bible is the word of a god (or God)? From a serious, honest, informed, critical study of the Bible?

I disagree with your premise, but assuming it true for the sake of argument, the same does not apply to the Book of Mormon (another of your bugaboos).

The evidence for the Book of Mormon's being of divine origins rests on its provenance: it came to us by means of an gel. There was no man-controlled track from ad 421 to 1827~29. It covers a fairly long historical period, little or none of which, including a portion in the "Old World" was known in the early XIX, and much of which was complete;y contradicted by contemporary received wisdom. So, there are but two options for anyone who rejects the Book of Mormon as a historically accurate record of what we might term "Lehi's Trek".

The first is that Joseph as the assumed author of the Book of Mormon was just immensely lucky, hitting repeated bull's eyes from his frontier village position, hits that no scholar of his age could have duplicated, or he was what he claimed to be: a restorer of ancient knowledge by means of the gift and power of God.

Those bull's eyes include the entire trek, from the river of Laman and valley of Lemuel to Bountiful, the "gong up to" and "coming down from" Jerusalem (idioms not reproduced clearly in the Bible) to the Leider father Lehi composed on seeing the river of water (also a Hebrew idiom) in the valley. It is Nahom, it is the "more fertile parts of the wilderness" (and, for that matter, the "wilderness itself). It includes a host of other, similar asides and foci Nephi inscribed into his record.

Lehi

Edited December 31, 2011 by LeSellers

[Emerald Twilights]

Actually, come to think of it, Shelama is pretty much close to the truth. Interesting. Hadn't thought of that before. Hmmmm.....

Go back to your first account or your IP will be banned instead of your sock puppet.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, come to think of it, Shelama is pretty much close to the truth. Interesting. Hadn't thought of that before. Hmmmm.....

Go back to your first account or your IP will be banned instead of your sock puppet.

LOL

Even after that, no answers. She could have at least used a sock puppet to make a reply.

Edited December 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Brade]

Haha, sheesh, if you're going to use a sock puppet at least learn how to use a proxy.

[Stargazer]

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.

I think it is fairly obvious that Shelama is a female. Given the combo of "She" + "Lama" = "Shelama".

The avatar is kind of a giveaway, too, and I will not explain why I think so.

[Calm]

I've had many email discussions with FAIR members initiated through questions submitted directly to FAIR, plus discussions and in the FAIRblog. FAIR administrators suggested the FAIR forums as the place to be.

This is not the FAIR forums. Once upon a time FAIR possessed a message board, but for various reasons it was not a good fit so the message board was cut loose. This board is a descendent of the FAIR board, but other than some shared history and a few shared posters, there is no connection. Your claim that you were referred here either demonstrates you are way out of date in your information (5 years maybe?) or that you can't keep your facts straight or that once you get an idea in your head new information has little impact or something else that gives little confidence in your greater conclusions if you are mistaken in this way in a minor one (major conclusions being made up of minor ones).

[mfbukowski]

The avatar is kind of a giveaway, too, and I will not explain why I think so.

Can you say "Georgia O'Keefe"?

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

You have based these comments on two strongly false assumptions, which is why you have not cited evidence in support of them.

Atheists like C. S. Lewis (an Oxford don with a profound understanding of history, literature, and the Bible) have accepted Christianity, i.e., going from unbelief to belief -- despite their previous understanding of dying and rising god myths in the ancient world a la Frazer. Lewis' reason: It seemed to him that in the case of Jesus, the myth became reality. He also stated that Christian literature had a powerful effect on him.

One need not be an idiot to convert. Indeed, as it happens, well educated and informed Mormons tend to be quite faithful. You seem to believe that the two do not go together. How do you explain research showing that Mormon intellectuals do not find their religion to be weak in the the areas of substantive evidence and logic? If you understood the logical and coherent underpinnings of Mormon theolology, you might very well sing another tune. As it is, you seem not to comprehend the nature of the issues you are addressing.

[Robert F. Smith]

You have based these comments on two strongly false assumptions, which is why you have not cited evidence in support of them.

Atheists like C. S. Lewis (an Oxford don with a profound understanding of history, literature, and the Bible) have accepted Christianity, i.e., going from unbelief to belief -- despite their previous understanding of dying and rising god myths in the ancient world a la Frazer. Lewis' reason: It seemed to him that in the case of Jesus, the myth became reality. He also stated that Christian literature had a powerful effect on him.

One need not be an idiot to convert. Indeed, as it happens, well educated and informed Mormons tend to be quite faithful. You seem to believe that the two do not go together. How do you explain research showing that Mormon intellectuals do not find their religion to be weak in the the areas of substantive evidence and logic? If you understood the logical and coherent underpinnings of Mormon theolology, you might very well sing another tune. As it is, you seem not to comprehend the nature of the issues you are addressing.

Someone has privately sent the following anonymous reply to my comment:

Lewis's soft atheism, declared in the immaturity of his adolescence following his childhood in the Christian faith, was interesting. As was as his relatively young return back to Christianity. I note that you don't cite evidence that Lewis actually had the profound, informed, critical understanding of the Bible that you seem to assume, or if he even had any interest in it. If he had it, or if he obtained it from either Tolkein or MacDonald for instance, you should be able to document it. That 'seeming'and religious literature may have a powerful effect on the emotions and aesthetic, and thence to religious sensibilities, is undeniable. And, of course, I've never denied it; I embrace with enthusiasm the fact of their enormous power in the world of religious experience.

SInce C. S. "Jack" Lewis was a master of literary criticism, I recall with fondness his piece on “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” BYU Studies, 9/1 (1968), 33-48 – originally read by him in 1959 and published in various venues since then. See it online at https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=4813 . In it he takes to task literary critics who pretended to know which of his writings required his greatest efforts and which were most important to him. They were wrong on both counts.

I've also neither said nor implied anything about idiots or even stupidity. Nor poorly educated or unintelligent Mormons. I've explicitly embraced the recognition that highly intelligent, educated people who are committed and invested in their belief can, indeed, pursue critical, scholarly study and mastery of the Bible and still retain their faith. Raymond Brown and John P. Meier as a Catholics and James Kugel and Rabbi Samuel Sandmel as Jews are both good examples and truly world class Bible scholars. E.P. Sanders and Amy-Jill Levine are interesting cases.

Yes, I had the pleasure of meeting Levine for the first time (have been reading her for years) at the recent Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco. I agree on your estimate of the others, but it is by no means uncommon for biblical scholars to be believers. After all, most come from a believing background which piqued their interest and got them into the discipline in the first instance.

However, most such scholars spend little time debating belief or lack of belief. They are caught up more directly in archeological, literary, and textual analysis. One is far more likely to find Eilat Mazar and Israel Finkelstein debating whether there is convincing evidence for a major Davidic kingdom, or for a rather small tribal chiefdom. This has more to do with maximalist and minimalist interpretations of the evidence. Rigidity is the bane of good scholarly discourse.

Of course, I've also never disparaged Mormon scholars, nor educated and interested lay persons, as "weak in the areas of substantive evidence or logic." (Who would expect devout Mormon intellectuals to ever self-assess themselves or their religion to be weak in those areas? Who would be surprised when they didn't?) I gladly give every person who claims or desires it equal credit for intelligence and the ability for critical, honest, informed thinking and study. And the ability to work with both evidence and logic. I accept that their conclusions, based on that kind of study of the common body of evidence, can all be justified as reasonable, rational and logical. I merely note that only those people who already have belief, commitment, or investment in the Bible conclude, on the basis of such critical study, for the Bible as the word of a god (or God) and as substantially literal history. I'll let you explain why that is true. Or why it's also true that some honest, sincere, former Christians, Mormons and Jews conclude against it precisely because of such study. Or why honest, interested, secular scholars with no axe to grind other than simply not giving the Bible privileged status conclude the Bible is man-made and never the opposite. Or why Margaret Barker and Jan Shipps are not Mormons or singing another tune.

I agree that neither the Bible nor the Mormon Canon should be given privileged status. The tools of scholarship should be applied fairly and broadly to all of history and literature. At the same time, I think that we require a variety of minds dealing with such matters from several POVs -- the warp and woof of good scholarship is frank, respectful exchange of ideas. Which is precisely what we obtain from scholars like Barker & Shipps, both of whom are Methodists. We obtained a like value from a dissertation written years ago on the Book of Abraham by a Jewish rabbi.

(In your own mind and experience, and from the common body of Biblical evidence available to all, what in or about the Bible argues for Divine origin or inspiration rather than man-made? Based on a critical study of the Bible, how would you attempt to persuade a person that it's the word of a god (or God)? What specifically about the Bible evidences Divinity and historicity as opposed to, say, the Qur'an? Or the writings of David Koresh?)

I wouldn't strictly distinguish between the value of bearing a sincere testimony or of presenting formal, substantive arguments for the coherence and systematic truth of some part of the Canon of Scripture -- regardless of the source from which it comes. The Qur'an and the Vedas deserve our sincere understanding as much as any other Canon, although I do recall a great Yogi from the Vedanta Society (a Bengali) telling me that it is less important which religious tradition or culture one adopts. What is most important is that one dive in and immerse oneself fully in a single tradition. A path is not a home, he said.

And, yes, there is a credible case to be made for the historical authenticity of the Judeo-Christian and Mormon Canons.

There were no credible examples of conversion based on the conclusions that kind of honest, informed, critical study and understanding of the Bible, or even by anyone possessing that type of Biblical understanding, from the one or two who seemed to assert it within the Discussion.

Depends on what you would accept as "credible." See below.

You've not provided any evidence that Lewis ever undertook or even had any interest in the particular approach to Bible study which I have consistently emphasized. His famous trilemma, in failing to recognize some very obvious other possibilities, strongly suggests that he did not. Liar, lord or lunatic are really the only things a man with a profound, critical understanding of the Bible can imagine? Really? Rather shocking for an Oxford don. How about, just maybe, that Jesus was simply wrong? Or that the real, historical Jesus never actually said any of the words put into his mouth by the author(s) of John? Or any self-claim found in the other Evangelists? Those thoughts in critical Bible studies had been around for more than a century.

If you really have evidence for an atheist converting to the Bible as the word of God and substantially literal history, or to Christianity, based on the conclusions of informed, honest, critical study of the Bible, or even just simply with that depth of understanding the Bible, I'm puzzled that you chose C.S. Lewis as an example instead.

The demand for evidence goes both ways, and it is as important for you to provide evidence backing up your claims about "informed, honest, critical study." How narrowly are you drawing the requirements?

I discussed Lewis above. However, the field is filled with other legitimate scholars who have left atheism for belief, some of them likewise associated with Oxford Univ.:

Antony Flew (late philosopher), another prominent Oxford man, turned from atheism to deism, and recommended the teaching of intelligent design in British schools; see his book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007).

A.N. Wilson (an Oxford man), a former atheist and son of an atheist, speaks of his return to Christianity in “Why I Believe Again,” New Statesman, April 2, 2009, online at http://www.newstates...erience-atheism .

See also:

Gerald Schroeder (Orthodox Jewish biblical scholar and physicist), God According to God: A Physicist Proves We Have Been Wrong About God All Along (HarperOne, 2011).

Guillermo Gonzalez (astrophysicist and proponent of intelligent design), with Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery, 2004).

Francis S. Collins (former atheist geneticist), who headed the team of scientists who cracked the human genome, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006).

Jonah Lehrer, “The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” The New Yorker, Dec 13, 2010, online at http://www.newyorker...3fa_fact_lehrer

“Such anomalies demonstrate the slipperiness of empiricism. Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard medical practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can’t bear to let them go. And this is why the decline effect is so troubling. Not because it reveals the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions. (Such shortcomings aren’t surprising, at least for scientists.) And not because it reveals that many of our most exciting theories are fleeting fads and will soon be rejected. (That idea has been around since Thomas Kuhn.) The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”

Finally, I highly recommend the comments of Kerry Shirts on this matter (http://www.ida.net/g...il/biblical.htm ), and a quote from Richard Lewontin would also not be out of order:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

Richard Lewontin, Harvard Professor of Zoology, and onetime atheist, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28. See also his book Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA, (1992).

Edited January 3, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

A further reply and comment from our anonymous source:

I don't see anything in your very nice response that indicates that anyone you specifically name, or anybody else, was religious, became religious, or returned to religion from atheism based on the conclusions of critical Bible study, or even with that depth of underrstanding and the appreciation of the issues involved. That critical understanding of Bible and Bible scholarship heavily prejudices a person from converting from UNBELIEF to BELIEF in the Bible and Christianity seems undeniable and noncontroversial. Nor that it's virtually always the emotion, the spirit, the religious experience.

Neither of us has proven our case, for me probably because I have never before been confronted with the notion that deep Bible scholarship is bound up with issues of belief. That is something which one might more likely associate with church or synagogue oriented activity (some years ago, a rabbi in L.A. announced to his congregation that the Exodus did not happen, and it became an issue discussed in newspapers and in Biblical Archaeology Society publications).

For one thing, biblical scholars in academe seldom deal with that issue, being far more interested in specialized, analytic matters. For another, there is tremendous respect among academics for the variety of religious views which may exist in their colleagues, but which has little effect on the conclusions they reach. Why assault the dignity of a fellow scholar?

Moreover, while there may certainly be prejudices and biases, I don't agree that critical biblical scholarship prevents one from going from unbelief to belief or vice-versa. People generally (including scholars) seldom base belief on dry analysis, and any LDS missionary can tell you that it is precisely the testimony of the Holy Spirit which is key to conversion. In any case, I don't see anything in critical biblical scholarship which should be the basis of confirming one's unbelief -- unless that is one's predisposition.

(I've only just begun, but Lewis' "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" seems as much an apologetic and literary criticism, and I've not yet found anything that sheds subsantive light on the "liar, lord, lunatic" silliness. I'm prepared to be convinced that he's far more proundly aware than that banality suggests.)

I have never given any credence to the banal "liar, lord, lunatic" trilemma, but there is certainly something to be learned from the mythopoeic world in which the Bible places itself. In other words, simplistic and narrow interpretations of the text of the Bible are equally as silly as when applied to any other ancient literature.

I don't extoll empiricism as a be all-end all. I merely make observations and, I trust, corrected a misstatement that I " have based these comments on two strongly false assumptions." No assumptions were false, let alone strongly so.

It's not only the Mormons among Christians who, in response to these observations, default to Lewis, Flew, Collins., etc, etc. People do the best they can with what they've got. "People coming from a believing background" are everywhere explicit in my observations and a large part of the point.

I would appreciate a citation or two of this phenomenon.

I know it's not the way it's properly done, but after years of trying, I've never found a true counter-example. If there's not one within FAIR, I'm only further comvinced they don't exist. I'd be happy for the exception that [dis]proves the rule. It's a falsifiable proposition. Perhaps Lewis will actually do it?

Those one or two people within this Discussion did not present any credible counter-examples. People were quick to claim that only that they personally knew several, but it's not clear they even really understood.

I haven't actually been looking for examples of either sort, and have never even attended an annual meeting of FAIR -- which is a very loose assemblage of people without a HQ or staff. As I understand it, interested parties can publish papers on the FAIR website and deliver papers annually, without any further interest in FAIR itself. So I am not clear about your emphasis on FAIR.

"And, yes, there is a credible case to be made for the historical authenticity of the Judeo-Christian and Mormon Canons." Again, I've not denied it but merely note that it seems compelling only to those who already believe. Why? (Including, of course, the Garden of Eden, Noah's Flood, Tower of Bable, talking snakes and donkeys, Isa 7:14 as both messianic and referring to a virginal conception, the virginal conception itself, walking on water, raising the dead, and even empty tombs and graves. Btw, I've no doubt that the 'almah known to both Isaiah and Ahaz was a virgin at the time Isaiah referred to her. In my opinion that virginity is not in doubt. Brownie scouts, like 'almahs are virgins but "virgin" is neither the point nor a reasonable primary attribution. My great-great-great grandmother was a virgin. She conceived and bore a son, my great-great grandfather. Unlike Mary, the Mother of Jesus, she actually did call him by the name of Emmanuel. That is historical.)

"The demand for evidence goes both ways, and it is as important for you to provide evidence backing up your claims about "informed, honest, critical study." How narrowly are you drawing the requirements?" I'm of the opinion that in FAIR it is or should be self-explanatory. Some Mormons seem to have a love-hate relationship to some of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, but I would include the full range of the "high criticism" which he warns against. Not that a person have a scholarly understanding of ALL the issues and depths, but at least a substantial appreciation of the multiplying issues known since before Spinoza. The thing is, once a person discovers the topic, the issues become increasingly interesting and expansive. As far as I can see, with nothing to compel or even slightly suggest that a Divinity is involved anywhere in the Bible. Unless one already believes it. If they do, no doubt they can soar like angels. But they'll also only be convincing only to the already-believing.

I have always had tremendous respect for the attitude of B. H. Roberts, who said:

. . . the Book of Mormon must submit to every test, literary criticism with the rest. Indeed, it must submit to every analysis and examination. It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to the higher criticism. . . , the world has a right to test it to the uttermost in every possible way. (

Improvement Era

, 14:667-668)

I agree with the large majority of what you said, and iwhile it's all very interesting, it just has little or no real relevance to what I was specifically addressing. Nor does it cast doubt on it (pending Lewis).

I have been doing and reading about both lower and higher criticism now for my entire adult life since first becoming acquainted with them at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in the summer of 1966. I have never found any reason to be fearful of the consequences of such scholarship, and have never found any reason based on that scholarship to abandon my LDS religious beliefs. Indeed, I have found that such critical research has strengthened my beliefs. I'll give an example:

In the fall of 1969, while a regular student of archeology and languages at the Hebrew University, I was casually looking over some introductory course materials in Akkadian cuneiform belonging to the wife of the LDS branch president -- a sign list, transliterations, and definitions. I noticed the Akkadian word she'um "barley; grain," and immediately recalled that the word appears in Mosiah 9:9 as an unknown food plant. Many more examples could be given, and many have been published which suggest that the Mormon Canon raises some very difficult questions for those who give it short shrift.

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is a further instalment on our discussion:

Bob,

I also enjoyed, thanks very much. I'd earlier read an article in the SLTribune by a Mr. Bergera that "Mormon Intellectualism is no Joke." I later ended up in FAIR and MDDB from a link somewhere regarding an article about Hitchens, and once there thought I'd probe a little bit Bergera's proposition.

Anecdotally, references to CS Lewis, Flew, Collins, et.al., abound in many discussions online with evangelicals and others; I have no other references. Flew's an interesting case and I don't overly contribute his 'conversion' and his yielding to issues of complexity to declining mental facilities. He seems pretty clear that there's nothing in his embrace that would include a Biblical or Christian god and he's really irrelevant to the point. Your article on Lewis I don't see tells us anything about Lewis' critical understanding of the Bible at his return to Christianity. Similarly, ANWilson's magazine article concerning his de-conversion and reconversion.

I had thought that you would see that Lewis made a very telling point in his objective falsification of the absurd and arrogant assumptions by his reviewers that they could correctly parse the literary origin and nature of some of his writings. The only worthwhile critical scholarship is that which is humble and tentative – and which directly engages the differing views of others.

I am unfamiliar with that particular article by Gary Bergera, although I know him to be a keen observer of the Mormon scene. As to the irrelevance of the several articles I cited, I suppose that we could also include the views of agnostic or atheistic scientists like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe – who advanced a very serious theory of intelligent design and the existence of very sophisticated sentient beings in the universe whom some might call “gods.”

The reason I mention that is because Mormon theology entails belief in entirely natural processes and a naturalistic universe (or multiverse) inhabited by advanced sentient beings called “gods.” Humans in that theology are themselves “godlings” who are coeternal with the “gods,” although not every “acorn” becomes an “oak tree.” Mormons are materialists and very pragmatic in their approach to reality. These are some of the reasons that Mormons are regarded with suspicion or condemnation by supernaturalists and immaterialists (including nearly all of the normative Judeo-Muslim-Christian tradition). The very terminology we use to define the discussion is less than adequate to do it justice.

These assumptions also lead to very different premises in analysis of religious texts.

I would be seriously and sincerely grateful if you can ever connect me to a person, living or dead, who did have a true, critical understanding of the Bible and who then converted to the Bible as divine, and to Christianity, anyway; from Unbelief to Belief, either because or in spite of that Biblical understanding. With respect (and I enjoyed and appreciated it), your latest response on the board really does very little if anything to address the specific points at issue. That Christians already invested and committed in their belief are in the top ranks of critical Biblical scholarship and understanding is always a given. That people lose belief based on such inquiry is also. The one's I'm interested are those who convert because of it or in spite of it.

I apologize for not being able to provide the type of definitive evidence satisfying your demands, but (as I pointed out) since most of those making a serious study of a particular religious tradition are normally raised in that tradition, I am forced to deal with an issue I haven’t actually studied deeply (with one hand tied behind me), because I consider it largely irrelevant to critical biblical scholarship. We should be far more interested in the particulars of such scholarship – the results – rather than dancing around the issue by making claims which assume what has to be proved. QED.

I would restate it all as falsifiable if somewhat redundant propositions:

1. The only people who find compelling the Christian and Mormon apologetics regarding divinity and divine truth in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Abraham, are those who already believe or have significant investment or committment.

2. Nobody (or virtually nobody, either way) who has critical understanding of the Bible converts from Disbelief to Belief, to either Christianity or Mormonism, either based on or in spite of that understanding.

3. Childhood indoctrination and/or relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism.

4. It is completely logical, reasonable and rational to conclude from the honest, sincere, critical study of the Bible that it is purely manmade in all respects. The only people who conclude otherwise, regardless of how intelligent or brilliant, are those who already have belief, commitment or investment.

I would like to see actual academic research articles (or books) which show these or like propositions to be true. I have asked for citations before and you should by now have provided some. The books and articles I have examined by those who make claims supporting any of your propositions are riddled with logical and factual errors (I have written extensively on this issue for many years). I can think of hundreds of factual and logical reasons why your claim that the Bible is “purely manmade in all respects” in proposition #4 is false. The same is true by extension to the Mormon Canon.

Your proposition #3 is manifestly untrue, and Mormon missionaries have great success far away from societies which have previously been indoctrinated in biblical beliefs, e.g., Mongolia is a prime example (1/5 of the population of the capital, Ulan Bator, is now Mormon).

Edited January 9, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[aleph]

Your proposition #3 is manifestly untrue, and Mormon missionaries have great success far away from societies which have previously been indoctrinated in biblical beliefs, e.g., Mongolia is a prime example (1/5 of the population of the capital, Ulan Bator, is now Mormon).

Robert, your numbers are interesting. According to the data I could find there are under 10,000 total members in all of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar has a population a 1.3 million. Even allowing for creativeness of the "new maths" being taught these days 10k into 1.3 million does not 20% make.

I guess your numbers are "manifestly untrue"?