"Major Problems with Mormonism"

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Did you mean ora pro nobis, Rory?

You are right, and we can forgive Robert Bellarmine.  He was merely adhering to the accepted science of his day, as mediated by Jesuit scholars.

Of course. It's pro nobis. This thing I use travelling changes many words. While making that change caused by faulty equipment, I should concede that my faulty recollection confused St. Robert for St. Charles Borromeo of Milan.

Thanks for the correction Robert. Good catch.

Rory

[snowflake]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There aren't thousands of copies though, there are thousands of fragments (many of which contain a verse or two, or just a few words).  Here's an exchange between John Tvedtnes and a non-LDS Christian concerning bible manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scrolls which, though not exactly what you are talking about, is related (this is curtesy of Jeff Lindsay's website).  

"Here is a related question that was posed to John Tvedtnes:

How does the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Mormon belief that the Bible was changed through the translations over the years? In my understanding, these scrolls, which were written before the apostasy, closely match the Masoretic Texts written during the apostasy, which closely match the scripture that we use today. Am I missing something?

The Dead Sea Scrolls include portions of all of our Old Testament canon except Esther, along with many texts that were not included in the Bible as we know it, though some are known from other ancient manuscripts. There are, however, many variants and, in fact, different versions. For example, there are several different versions of Exodus and Samuel (1 and 2 Samuel were a single book at that time). One of the Samuel manuscripts has information found in no other Bible versions, while others have material found in the Greek Septuagint of the 3rd century B.C. but not found in the Hebrew texts from which English Bibles have been translated. The late Yehezkel Kutscher of the Hebrew University wrote an entire book on the variants between the larger Isaiah Scroll found in cave 1 and the Massoretic Hebrew text that has been used in synagogues for centuries and was the basis for our English Bibles. Fundamentalist Christians, believing that the Bible is complete and inerrant, take exception with Latter-day Saint views of the Bible, but the scholarly evidence suggests that there have always been problems of transmission of Bible texts. Some of the Isaiah variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Book of Mormon quotes from Isaiah, while others support the Massoretic text and still others support neither.

The same person had a related question:

And for the New Testament, I've read that the 5,000+ manuscripts are in 99% agreement with each other, with the oldest copy dating to A.D. 130. (I'm not being very detailed because I'm assuming you've argued this before and already know the history) These seem like pretty good numbers...what is your view on why the New Testament is inaccurate? My friends were under the impression that the NT has been translated from language A to language B to language C, and so on, and that over the years, the original meaning of the scriptures was lost. But as far as I know, each time the Bible is written it is translated from one of the original texts. Comments?

Here is John's reply:

There are not 5,000+ manuscripts, since most are fragments rather than complete manuscripts. For example, the one you note from ca. A.D. 130 is one of the smallest fragments and contains only portions of two verses from John. (Another early fragment has a few words from Matthes.) To date, non-Latter-day Saint Bible scholars have catalogued more than half a million variants in the Greek texts of the New Testament. Many are, of course, scribal errors, but there is much evidence for manipulation of the text. See, for example, Bart Ehrman's book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

I should add that there are no Bible manuscripts from before the fourth century A.D. Prior to that time, each book was written on a separate scroll. Some of the first bound Bibles lack New Testament books like 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation, but include books no longer in our Bibles, such as Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement. >From the writings of the early Church Fathers, we know that many early Christians accepted other books that did not end up in the Bible. Indeed, even today, the Russian Orthodox, Abyssinian (Ethiopic), and other eastern churches have Bibles that contain books missing from our western Bible, which came via the Roman Catholic Church."

Ok lets stay focused on the N.T. You pick out a very "liberal" scholar who has made career out of attacking the Bible. Just take a look at the books Bart Ehrman's has published. No agenda there.  Granted I hate ad-homonym attacks, I just want the facts.  So look at some of the debates on youtube between Bart Ehrman and Wallace, very interesting but long as well.  This question we are asking is crucial and I encourage you Bluebell to do some research from non-lds scholars. Has the N.T. been corrupted?  I submit to you that it has not. 

[Guest]

On June 9, 2016 at 10:01 AM, jkwilliams said:

Traditionally, religious faith is not based on material fact, so when one attacks a religious faith by judging it against "facts," it holds up only so long as one is unwilling to judge one's own faith by the same standard. As far as I know, no religion has the "facts" on its side. That's as it should be. 

True, and if they were to do the same with Christianity, then no one would by their books. Their patrons are those who hate Mormons...CARMites, as the Walter Martin site died with Walter Martin. Matt Slick was there to get the Walter Martin dollars, which is what they all want. There is and always has been big money in hate. Sadly, I wish it were not so, it is a heartbreaking reality in our fallen world.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Ok lets stay focused on the N.T. You pick out a very "liberal" scholar who has made career out of attacking the Bible. Just take a look at the books Bart Ehrman's has published. No agenda there.  Granted I hate ad-homonym attacks, I just want the facts.  So look at some of the debates on youtube between Bart Ehrman and Wallace, very interesting but long as well.  This question we are asking is crucial and I encourage you Bluebell to do some research from non-lds scholars. Has the N.T. been corrupted?  I submit to you that it has not. 

Assertion is not the same thing as evidence, and the summary by John Tvedtnes is very restrained.  It represents the standard scholarship of modern times, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but fact-based.  Merely comparing the 4 Gospels ought to make it clear that we do not have one version of Christian origins in them, but great diversity.  And all of them are late.  We have no scholarly way of knowing how closely any of them actually mirror the real life of Jesus and his disciples.  For that we are left to depend upon the Holy Spirit.  You say that you "just want the facts," but you have no idea what those facts might be nor how to obtain them -- short of knowledge mediated via the Holy Spirit.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

You completely miss the point, when you have thousands of copies to compare it is a good thing. Textual variants can be compared to ensure accuracy. You are correct in saying none of them totally agree however that is extremely misleading. So if we had a documents that agreed to 99.5% and then there was a spelling error we would have to throw both copes out because they didn't "totally" agree, this line of reasoning is "nonsense" sir. This is the sort of thing you seem to be claiming. 

Here is Dr. Daniel P. Wallce explaining your faulty argument and apparent lack of knowledge on Textual criticism. He is on the board of directors at http://www.csntm.org/About/BoardOfDirectors

 

Here is a very brief description of how textual criticism works. 

 

No textual variants prove the scriptures are true

The Book of Mormon has no scriptural variants

Therefore

It's TRUE!!

The same argument works well for the Book of Abraham.

These silly arguments cut both ways.

Edited June 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

No textual variants prove the scriptures are true

The Book of Mormon has no scriptural variants

Therefore

It's TRUE!!

The same argument works well for the Book of Abraham.

So does that mean that somebody made up "Q"?

These silly arguments cut both ways.

Technically speaking there are many textual variants of the Book of Mormon. The 1837 and 1840 revisions come to mind. 

[Atheist Mormon]

22 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm impressed by your faith, Atheist Mormon.

That is not a faith, it's called knowledge....No matter how much you appeal to it, it will not respond, never will...I guarantee it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Technically speaking there are many textual variants of the Book of Mormon. The 1837 and 1840 revisions come to mind. 

I really don't want to carry this on with you

They admit thousands of bible variants as well.  

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I really don't want to carry this on with you

They admit thousands of bible variants as well.  

It was just a minor comment. Nothing to carry on. In case you missed it, I already said this notion of faith depending on manuscript history is silly. 

I really should refrain from ever commenting on your posts, as you invariably take what I say in the worst possible light. 

Edited June 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Traela]

On June 9, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

Robert, you are asking "What is your epistemic correlate?" .........  If you are nineteen years old I can understand your question, but if you are over couple years of sixty you should know that there's no God......(I do not mean any disrespect BTW).......

 

I hate to break it to you, but your experience is very limited.  My husband's uncle just died a couple of weeks ago at the age of 92.  He was one of the most intelligent people I've ever known (and in a family of scientists and engineers that's saying something), as well as the most well-read.  After much research, he determined both spiritually and intellectually that there is a god.

 

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It was just a minor comment. Nothing to carry on. In case you missed it, I already said this notion of faith depending on manuscript history is silly. 

I really should refrain from ever commenting on your posts, as you invariably take what I say in the worst possible light. 

I am waiting to see a reason not to.

[Atheist Mormon]

22 minutes ago, Traela said:

I hate to break it to you, but your experience is very limited.  My husband's uncle just died a couple of weeks ago at the age of 92.  He was one of the most intelligent people I've ever known (and in a family of scientists and engineers that's saying something), as well as the most well-read.  After much research, he determined both spiritually and intellectually that there is a god.

 

Traela, I do appreciate your uncle's determination.....But how is that going to help me? Wouldn't that wise god of His (I'm not joking, or trying to be demeaning here) would put 5000$ in my account and declare his veracity? Sorry but all of his research is in vain, it is not tested or verified......

[mfbukowski]

On 6/9/2016 at 8:51 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So, we are narrowing it down, even if it is like pulling teeth: "If you have rational reasons for believing that there is no God (or gods), I'd love to hear them."

"Based on reality" (which is unknowable and which he knows for all of us in his omnipotence, yet atheistic omnipotence....)

I am keeping out of this one, lest I lose it.  It never ends.

Edited June 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

True, and if they were to do the same with Christianity, then no one would by their books. Their patrons are those who hate Mormons...CARMites, as the Walter Martin site died with Walter Martin. Matt Slick was there to get the Walter Martin dollars, which is what they all want. There is and always has been big money in hate. Sadly, I wish it were not so, it is a heartbreaking reality in our fallen world.  

Equally as sad there is also big money in belief.  Case in point is the high dollar T.V. evangelists with their houses and cars. And even our own church with it's closed books and multi million dollar real estate deals. Where does all of this extravagance fit in with Christ's teachings? It seems many organizations have drifted far away from the simple message found in the new testament. 

Edited June 11, 2016 by sunstoned

[Storm Rider]

On 6/9/2016 at 10:03 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

Atheist rely on nothing when belief is mentioned. They already know it is a bottomless pit / void.

Edited to add; Would you entertain any faith in superbowl played last year? You know the result allready....Atheists know already; there's no god/

See that is the slippery slope you have proposed - you "know".  Pray tell, how do you know?  What proof do you have that demonstrates to all that God is not there?  You cannot.  You say you know exactly like a Mormon in Fast & Testimony Meeting says they "know".  There is no difference regardless of much you may want to protest.  

Now, if you knew the winner of the Super Bowl in 2017 then we might have something to talk about....but alas, you don't. 

Edited June 11, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Eek!]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Now, if you knew the winner of the Super Bowl in 1917 then we might have something to talk about....but alas, you don't. 

In 1917 there was no NFL and no Super Bowl, but there was the precursor of the NFL, the Ohio League.  In 1917 Jim Thorpe led the Canton Bulldogs to the Ohio League championship.

Oh wait... nevermind. 

[pcarthew]

On 6/10/2016 at 3:35 AM, snowflake said:

Wow, archeology and manuscripts mean nothing? Manuscripts describing people, timelines, genealogies, places.....these mean nothing?  If you are willing to dismiss the N.T. texts as nothing then you must also dismiss all other ancient records as nothing. The manuscript evidence for the N.T. is far greater than any other ancient book in the world.  There is superior criteria for affirming this than any other book.  But to you bluebell that means nothing............

 

Your study of the New Testament based on your statement above is flawed.  Although I believe the New Testament is the word of God, the reasoning of its validity based on archeological evidence and verifying documents mean very little, as there are many documents that contradict what christians believe in and about the New Testament.  Canonised scripture is special for believers, as it is brought about by revelation and the hand of God, through His appointed servants.  Of course there is supporting evidence of the New Testament.  So  there is evidence to the contrary too.  The great power in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon come through faith and obedience to commandments and the counsel provided therein.  By the way there is supporting evidence of the Book of Mormon too.  You perhaps choose to not believe or ignore.  What a blessing that is, that you have your agency to do so.  I feel those same blessings in my life too, in choosing to believe in what I believe in.  

Your comment  that "manuscript evidence for the New Testament is far greater than any other ancient book in the world" may or perhaps may not be true, let's say that you're right on that point.  What does that mean....not much.  Most of the people on the planet either have never heard of the New Testament or couldn't careless about it...no matter how much evidence there is or you claim there is.  The power in such a beautiful text comes from faith in and a testimony of the resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  There is no "power" in any of the "evidence" unless we seek truth and follow it.

I think faith would mean everything to bluebell based on her comment.

 

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Eek! said:

In 1917 there was no NFL and no Super Bowl, but there was the precursor of the NFL, the Ohio League.  In 1917 Jim Thorpe led the Canton Bulldogs to the Ohio League championship.

Oh wait... nevermind. 

I am showing my age - try 2017.  Good catch.

[Atheist Mormon]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

See that is the slippery slope you have proposed - you "know".  Pray tell, how do you know?  What proof do you have that demonstrates to all that God is not there?  You cannot.  You say you know exactly like a Mormon in Fast & Testimony Meeting says they "know".  There is no difference regardless of much you may want to protest.  

Now, if you knew the winner of the Super Bowl in 2017 then we might have something to talk about....but alas, you don't. 

Slippery slope, who is standing on it? Not me....It is you who gives the possibility of God might be there; heck why don't we include ghosts, aliens, invisible unicorns and the invisible spaceship waiting for me to take off? I have no intention of offending anybody...but I'm forced to defend reality here and reality is; there's no God. Until he shows Himself (which i don't even doubt, I know he won't because he doesn't exist). 

I'm a student of history (very amateur one).....It is littered with examples of Christian misery, not only that the sword of Islam butchered tens of millions of them without hesitation....And greatest examples of rare victories our civilization had was made possible by identifiable forces, like Americans defeated Nazis or Americans took a successful mission to kill Osama (sorry about using Americans only).......

 

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am waiting to see a reason not to.

I'm sorry I've given you reason to feel that way. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Equally as sad there is also big money in belief.  Case in point is the high dollar T.V. evangelists with their houses and cars. And even our own church with it's closed books and multi million dollar real estate deals. Where does all of this extravagance fit in with Christ's teachings? It seems many organizations have drifted far away from the simple message found in the new testament. 

The difference between Televangelists is that the money for the most part goes into the pockets of the televangelist's. The Church owned businesses goes into offsetting money from tithing for the building of Chapels, Temples, missionary (or missions) efforts and Deseret industries. It does not go into making Gerneral Authorities into millionaires and billionaires. Remember when the Church did away with local budgets donations...I have never known of any Church to ask members to give less. Not even in the one room Church I grew up in until the age of 19. My mother got wrapped up in sending money to many of these televangelists, while they would tell T.V. listeners that their book and tapes were free, if they would just send in a love offering. Pamphlets and smaller books would be sent for nothing so that they could put you on their mailing lists. Also they would talk about helping people in third world countries, where they would pay a fee to post their banners and then competing televangelists would pay the same village to post their banner. My father finally helped my mother understand what was going on and that she would be better off giving it to our local Church, or the Southren Baptist Conference to which our tiny Church belonged. Currently there are at least four mega Churches in the Atlanta area under indictment for income tax evasion. Two of the Pastors under sexual indictments of member, one for allegations for sexual charges against teenage boys. Many may remember a few years back where the President of the Evangelical Association of America, who was the most outspoken pastor in America was involved with a number of Gay prostitutes, and one years long lover. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Traela, I do appreciate your uncle's determination.....But how is that going to help me? Wouldn't that wise god of His (I'm not joking, or trying to be demeaning here) would put 5000$ in my account and declare his veracity? Sorry but all of his research is in vain, it is not tested or verified......

Here is a 100 Trillion $ note. Did I just buy you?

SEE https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Trillion+%24+note.&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-005

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Traela, I do appreciate your uncle's determination.....But how is that going to help me? Wouldn't that wise god of His (I'm not joking, or trying to be demeaning here) would put 5000$ in my account and declare his veracity? Sorry but all of his research is in vain, it is not tested or verified......

I think you missed the mark in "not being demeaning here". 

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Slippery slope, who is standing on it? Not me....It is you who gives the possibility of God might be there; heck why don't we include ghosts, aliens, invisible unicorns and the invisible spaceship waiting for me to take off? I have no intention of offending anybody...but I'm forced to defend reality here and reality is; there's no God. Until he shows Himself (which i don't even doubt, I know he won't because he doesn't exist). 

I'm a student of history (very amateur one).....It is littered with examples of Christian misery, not only that the sword of Islam butchered tens of millions of them without hesitation....And greatest examples of rare victories our civilization had was made possible by identifiable forces, like Americans defeated Nazis or Americans took a successful mission to kill Osama (sorry about using Americans only).......

 

So you are blaming God for Agency?

[Atheist Mormon]

17 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

I think you missed the mark in "not being demeaning here". 

Won't be the first time?