Does this video by anthropologists say the Book of Mormon didn't happen?

[Jim Stiles]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And you apparently have not read the review.

Lou Midgley is no believer in Mormon "neo-orthodoxy".  You should know that anyway, if you allege to know about Mormonism.

Upon reading the review, it appears that White uses the term differently than critics of Mormon apologists.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Jim Stiles
corrected mistake

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Ask an LDS missionary about the Adam God Theory and see what kind of response one gets?  If there is no concept of correct thinking, then there is no reason to believe what the LDS church teaches about correct practice.

Jim,

Just curious.  How do you view the role of an "LDS missionary"?  Your question is based on a false assumption on what missionaries do and gives me a feeling that you really don't know what you are talking about when talking about my church.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Ask an LDS missionary about the Adam God Theory and see what kind of response one gets?  If there is no concept of correct thinking, then there is no reason to believe what the LDS church teaches about correct practice.

Another one for you to not answer-- what is correct thinking and how does one know it is correct?

For the millionth time, why is the bible "correct"?  Because a real Jerusalem exits?  So does a real Babylon- I have seen the Ishtar gate with my own eyes. Does that evidence mean we should worship Marduk?

How do you "know" you are allegedly "saved" and saved from what?

Incidentally I have never quoted Bart Ehrman in my life- he is a fool.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Ask an LDS missionary about the Adam God Theory and see what kind of response one gets?  If there is no concept of correct thinking, then there is no reason to believe what the LDS church teaches about correct practice.

You do not understand the Adam God theory.

Christ was the "second Adam" - he was God wasn't he?  Do you know the difference between a name and a title?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Jim,

Just curious.  How do you view the role of an "LDS missionary"?  Your question is based on a false assumption on what missionaries do and gives me a feeling that you really don't know what you are talking about when talking about my church.

And yet he claims to have been a Mormon and I think, a returned missionary as I recall.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Upon reading the review, it appears that Kendal uses the term differently than critics of Mormon apologists.

Huh?

His name is Kendall White.

White wrote the book.

Midgley reviewed the book.  Midgley was critical of White who also has no understanding of Mormonism.

Midgley is a Mormon apologist.

Now you are saying that White uses the term dfferently than CRITICS of Mormon apologists?

Who is the "critic of Mormon apologists"?

How is the term used differently?  And WHO uses it differently?  This was your quote to make your point- surely you understand the article?

But as usual, you do not respond to the hard questions.  It's all one way with you. Drive- by one liners with no substance.

Edited March 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet he claims to have been a Mormon and I think, a returned missionary as I recall.

A quick review of antiMormon videos show show several  ex-Bishops who know little about LDS doctrines.

Edited March 5, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

A quick review of antiMormon videos show show several  ex-Bishops who little about LDS doctrines.

Alleged bishops.

[Jim Stiles]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Jim,

Just curious.  How do you view the role of an "LDS missionary"?  Your question is based on a false assumption on what missionaries do and gives me a feeling that you really don't know what you are talking about when talking about my church.

For many LDS congregations in the hinterlands, the LDS missionary is the most knowledgeable person in the local congregation on Mormonism.  Mention the Adam God theory to them, and they will accuse you of spreading anti-mormon lies.

[Jim Stiles]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Jim,

Just curious.  How do you view the role of an "LDS missionary"?  Your question is based on a false assumption on what missionaries do and gives me a feeling that you really don't know what you are talking about when talking about my church.

You are welcome to correct me.

[Jim Stiles]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

His name is Kendall White.

White wrote the book.

Midgley reviewed the book.  Midgley was critical of White who also has no understanding of Mormonism.

Midgley is a Mormon apologist.

Now you are saying that White uses the term dfferently than CRITICS of Mormon apologists?

Who is the "critic of Mormon apologists"?

How is the term used differently?  And WHO uses it differently?  This was your quote to make your point- surely you understand the article?

But as usual, you do not respond to the hard questions.  It's all one way with you. Drive- by one liners with no substance.

The people you call anti-mormons.  Evangelical Christians are most likely to use Neo-Orthodoxy as a negative term.

[Jim Stiles]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet he claims to have been a Mormon and I think, a returned missionary as I recall.

I never claimed to be a returned missionary.  You must be confusing me with someone else.  :-)

[Jim Stiles]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Another one for you to not answer-- what is correct thinking and how does one know it is correct?

For the millionth time, why is the bible "correct"?  Because a real Jerusalem exits?  So does a real Babylon- I have seen the Ishtar gate with my own eyes. Does that evidence mean we should worship Marduk?

How do you "know" you are allegedly "saved" and saved from what?

Incidentally I have never quoted Bart Ehrman in my life- he is a fool.

Ultimately the Bible is true because it says that it is true.  All proofs of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical autographs are circular in nature.  I believe in the Bible because I know it in my heart.  All sophisticated arguments for the Bible boil down to simple fideism.  Even the recognition of the scriptural canon boils down to individual believers, through their duly ordained representatives, saying these books are scripture, those books are not scripture.  The geography and zoology of the Bible appears, to my personal understanding, to be accurate, but that is not sufficient proof for the Bible's truthfulness.  It is necessary, but not sufficient.

I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because its geography cannot be determined.  I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because its zoology is incorrect.  I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because it has pious Jews acting in a manner that no pious Jew would act.

Others have quoted Bart Ehrman here.

[Jim Stiles]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You do not understand the Adam God theory.

Christ was the "second Adam" - he was God wasn't he?  Do you know the difference between a name and a title?

No.  The Federal headship theology of the Book of Hebrews is not the Adam-God theory.  Do not insult my intelligence.

The Adam-God theory was the idea that the historical Adam, the first human being, was the God, as well as the biological father, of the human race on planet Earth.  This idea was invented by Brigham Young and has been repudiated by the modern LDS church.  To outsiders, it seems like a theological doctrine invented by Monty Python for their television program.

The Wikipedia article on the Adam-God theory appears to be a fair description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine

Quote

The Adam–God doctrine (or Adam–God theory) was a theological doctrine taught in mid-19th century Mormonism by church president Brigham Young, and accepted to some degree by later Presidents John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff, and by apostles who served under them in the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Although rejected today by the LDS Church, the doctrine is still an accepted part of the modern theology of some forms of Mormon fundamentalism. According to Young, he was taught by Joseph Smith that Adam is "our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do".

 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

 The geography and zoology of the Bible appears, to my personal understanding, to be accurate, but that is not sufficient proof for the Bible's truthfulness.  It is necessary, but not sufficient.

I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because its geography cannot be determined.  

So where was the Garden of Eden?

[Jim Stiles]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Another one for you to not answer-- what is correct thinking and how does one know it is correct?

For the millionth time, why is the bible "correct"?  Because a real Jerusalem exits?  So does a real Babylon- I have seen the Ishtar gate with my own eyes. Does that evidence mean we should worship Marduk?

How do you "know" you are allegedly "saved" and saved from what?

Incidentally I have never quoted Bart Ehrman in my life- he is a fool.

I do not know that I was elected to salvation.  I strongly believe that I was elected to salvation.  Salvation from what?  The fiery pit of hell (gehenna) where the reprobate will be sent to just before the glorification of the elect.

Quote

O sacred Head, now wounded, with grief and shame weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded with thorns, Thine only crown;
How pale Thou art with anguish, with sore abuse and scorn!
How does that visage languish, which once was bright as morn!

What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered, was all for sinners’ gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior! ’Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor, vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

Men mock and taunt and jeer Thee, Thou noble countenance,
Though mighty worlds shall fear Thee and flee before Thy glance.
How art thou pale with anguish, with sore abuse and scorn!
How doth Thy visage languish that once was bright as morn!

Now from Thy cheeks has vanished their color once so fair;
From Thy red lips is banished the splendor that was there.
Grim death, with cruel rigor, hath robbed Thee of Thy life;
Thus Thou hast lost Thy vigor, Thy strength in this sad strife.

My burden in Thy Passion, Lord, Thou hast borne for me,
For it was my transgression which brought this woe on Thee.
I cast me down before Thee, wrath were my rightful lot;
Have mercy, I implore Thee; Redeemer, spurn me not!

What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest friend,
For this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever, and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.

My Shepherd, now receive me; my Guardian, own me Thine.
Great blessings Thou didst give me, O source of gifts divine.
Thy lips have often fed me with words of truth and love;
Thy Spirit oft hath led me to heavenly joys above.

Here I will stand beside Thee, from Thee I will not part;
O Savior, do not chide me! When breaks Thy loving heart,
When soul and body languish in death’s cold, cruel grasp,
Then, in Thy deepest anguish, Thee in mine arms I’ll clasp.

The joy can never be spoken, above all joys beside,
When in Thy body broken I thus with safety hide.
O Lord of Life, desiring Thy glory now to see,
Beside Thy cross expiring, I’d breathe my soul to Thee.

My Savior, be Thou near me when death is at my door;
Then let Thy presence cheer me, forsake me nevermore!
When soul and body languish, oh, leave me not alone,
But take away mine anguish by virtue of Thine own!

Be Thou my consolation, my shield when I must die;
Remind me of Thy passion when my last hour draws nigh.
Mine eyes shall then behold Thee, upon Thy cross shall dwell,
My heart by faith enfolds Thee. Who dieth thus dies well.

-- Arnulf of Leuven (?-1250), translated by J.W. Alexander (1804-1859).

 

[Jim Stiles]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

So where was the Garden of Eden?

I am 99.99% certain that the Garden of Eden was located where the northernmost portion of the Persian Gulf is today.  It was not flooded in Pleistocene times.  Noah's flood was in the fertile crescent, and the flood waters extended a greater distance horizontally than the horizon.  To someone with an ANE understanding of geography, it would look as if the entire earth was flooded.  All of humanity, except those on the ark, were destroyed.

[Jim Stiles]

6 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I am 99.99% certain that the Garden of Eden was located where the northernmost portion of the Persian Gulf is today.  It was not flooded in Pleistocene times.  Noah's flood was in the fertile crescent, and the flood waters extended a greater distance horizontally than the horizon.  To someone with an ANE understanding of geography, it would look as if the entire earth was flooded.  All of humanity, except those on the ark, were destroyed.

This Telegraph article has some useful historical information:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10574119/Noahs-Ark-the-facts-behind-the-Flood.html

[thesometimesaint]

I always thought Troy was in New York. Different places can have the same name.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

You are welcome to correct me.

OK, some free advice.

Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.   I'm not your momma.

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 3/5/2016 at 0:28 AM, Jim Stiles said:

Yes, I have heard of the idea of an Open Canon.

John 30 says, "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

So according to John 30:31 the Gospel of John has everything we need to believe, which makes the Old Testament, the epistles, the other gospels, and the Book of Revelation unnecessary. Do we need the rest of the Bible?

Explain that smart guy.

Edited March 6, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

The people you call anti-mormons.  Evangelical Christians are most likely to use Neo-Orthodoxy as a negative term.

So your argument then is that "neo-orthodoxy" is found commonly in Mormonism, and that is a negative.  So tell me more about that.

I want to get to the root of this neo-orthodoxy thing, because as yet your argument is based on undefined jargon.  It appears that "n-o" is bad because it is related to postmodernism, which I imagine to an EV means that it is "sophistry" and denies the truth.  That is what I got out of the review, among other things.  But you are saying that Midgley had a different definition?

So what then is "truth" for an EV?  How is it incompatible with "neo-othrodoxy"?

You say that you believe in the bible due to a testimony experience, and yet I suspect that EV's do not define truth as being able to be defined by a testimony experience.

In point of fact, the only way a testimony can show "valid truth" philosophically is through a postmodern understanding of language. That makes feelings of the heart equally permissible to calling the experience "true" because in postmodernism the truth is contextual.  Religious feelings therefore are as "true" as science, within a different context.  So it seems to me one cannot logically combine the truth of testimony with the EV view of what constitutes "truth"- which is based on evidence.

So there's a conflict there.  Truth requires evidence, yet all you have are feelings.  We can resolve that, but I don't think you can.  For us, truth is what the spirit teaches, and evidence itself is judged on that same basis. (Alma 32. Moroni 10:5, James 1:5)  The spirit can tell you the truth of all things.  THAT is the basis for Mormon "truth".

Go ahead and convince me that your concept of truth is compatible with spiritual experience. 

 Maybe I will convert.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I never claimed to be a returned missionary.  You must be confusing me with someone else.  :-)

Fair enough, sorry.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Ultimately the Bible is true because it says that it is true.  All proofs of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical autographs are circular in nature.  I believe in the Bible because I know it in my heart.  All sophisticated arguments for the Bible boil down to simple fideism.  Even the recognition of the scriptural canon boils down to individual believers, through their duly ordained representatives, saying these books are scripture, those books are not scripture.  The geography and zoology of the Bible appears, to my personal understanding, to be accurate, but that is not sufficient proof for the Bible's truthfulness.  It is necessary, but not sufficient.

I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because its geography cannot be determined.  I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because its zoology is incorrect.  I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because it has pious Jews acting in a manner that no pious Jew would act.

Others have quoted Bart Ehrman here.

I find this very convoluted and we need not get into it unless you want to.  There are at least 4 reasons I think it is wrong.  Four separate topics.

1- BOM people were not "Jews" in a religious sense, they were hybrid Jews as well as Christians at the same time.  They were operating under the Melchizadek priesthood, not the Levitical, though they kept many Jewish customs.  I am not an expert on these matters, but you notice throughout the BOM that they believed in Christ in a very specific manner, not at all like the Old Testament, so much so that critics see these views as anachronisms.

2- Geography has nothing to do with religious truth, and is clearly not a necessary condition for believing it.   Belief in the 10 commandments has nothing to do with where they were written- the idea is absurd.  They are true because they are requirements for human civilization to exist- anywhere. Biblical practices are not based on geography. The practice of animal sacrifice is virtually universal among primitive people and has nothing to do with geography.  Creation stories similar to the biblical story are found everywhere.  Stories of floods are found everywhere.  The religious meaning of these stories is what is important- not where they happened.

3- Again and again you refer to "your understanding" as your intellectual justification for belief in the bible.  I have no problem with that- good for you.  But I hate to tell you that makes you a postmodernist just like me, just perhaps unwilling to admit it.  Postmodernism is inescapable for us living in this time.  It is in the air we breathe.  The very American idea of freedom of choice and freedom to decide what is best for us makes us "postmoderns".  Truth cannot be based on the bible if truth IN the bible is based on feelings- that makes the chain of truth ultimately based on feelings.  I know it is your job to tell us what we believe, but let's put the show on the other foot. Evangelicals do not believe that belief in the bible should be based on personal feelings. 

4- And if you do not know where the BOM took place, how can you know it's zoology is "incorrect"?  Should it have kangaroos and platypuses?  Seals and polar bears?

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

No.  The Federal headship theology of the Book of Hebrews is not the Adam-God theory.  Do not insult my intelligence.

The Adam-God theory was the idea that the historical Adam, the first human being, was the God, as well as the biological father, of the human race on planet Earth.  This idea was invented by Brigham Young and has been repudiated by the modern LDS church.  To outsiders, it seems like a theological doctrine invented by Monty Python for their television program.

The Wikipedia article on the Adam-God theory appears to be a fair description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine

 

No, it is not a fair description.  It may appear to you to be so because you do not understand the ramifications of the idea, which is not and never was "doctrine", ridicule it as you will.  "Our Father, who art in Heaven...."

We do not need to go into this farther, to do so entails temple content.  Let's just discuss the other points- there is quite enough there.

But it is odd that you understand "federal headship" and do not understand our God head and subscribe to the "consubstantial" Trinity.  What the heck is "substance" anyway??

If Christ is our "representative" it is a small step to understanding the Godhead as a perfect "congress" unified in purpose as no human congress could ever be.  If you like political analogies, that should be right up your alley.

Edited March 6, 2016 by mfbukowski