Comments on: Myths Be Gone http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/ It's forbidden, but it's good! Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:59:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Lautensack http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-2/#comment-5664 Lautensack Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:23:11 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5664 ...CONT... As for the new testament being historically accurate I suggest reading a first century Jewish historian, Josephus. Also on the topic of historical evidence, yes it does evolve, however the evidence for the Book of Mormon is evolving to show its invalidity not its validity. Furthermore to say that there we can have little to no confidence in what scholars say because they "try to draw a complete picture before we have a more complete context" is a red herring because it makes the claim that we can truly know nothing at all is foolishness. Sure one can say we can never prove gravity, and we cannot, we can simply interpret the data and come to the conclusion that it does. To take skepticism to the level you would suggest would state that I do not know if the color of the sky was blue or red during the sun's zenith. I do not doubt that you have never had a negative experience from following the Book of Mormon, I have a dear friend,an Agnostic, who has never had a negative experience from his sexual relations outside of marriage, does that mean that what He is doing isn't wrong? By no means, so simply because one does not feel or have a negative experience from something does not mean that it is good or true. He too would gladly bear witness to something he believes is good and true. He too tells me that I should try his lifestyle, because he wants me to experience the pleasures he does. Therefore while I believe you are sincere I believe you are sincerely wrong as I do with my friend. As for the Book of Mormon standing "solidly as the word of God" and speaking "for itself." What evidence outside of an unprovable spiritual experience, no different than the Islamic fundamentalist's, speaks for the Book of Mormon? What precepts from it can be found that are useful for people who reject its message? While scores of people reject that the Bible is the word of God, they do take from it some things, such as the Proverbs. Lautensack …CONT…
As for the new testament being historically accurate I suggest reading a first century Jewish historian, Josephus. Also on the topic of historical evidence, yes it does evolve, however the evidence for the Book of Mormon is evolving to show its invalidity not its validity. Furthermore to say that there we can have little to no confidence in what scholars say because they “try to draw a complete picture before we have a more complete context” is a red herring because it makes the claim that we can truly know nothing at all is foolishness. Sure one can say we can never prove gravity, and we cannot, we can simply interpret the data and come to the conclusion that it does. To take skepticism to the level you would suggest would state that I do not know if the color of the sky was blue or red during the sun’s zenith.
I do not doubt that you have never had a negative experience from following the Book of Mormon, I have a dear friend,an Agnostic, who has never had a negative experience from his sexual relations outside of marriage, does that mean that what He is doing isn’t wrong? By no means, so simply because one does not feel or have a negative experience from something does not mean that it is good or true. He too would gladly bear witness to something he believes is good and true. He too tells me that I should try his lifestyle, because he wants me to experience the pleasures he does. Therefore while I believe you are sincere I believe you are sincerely wrong as I do with my friend.
As for the Book of Mormon standing “solidly as the word of God” and speaking “for itself.” What evidence outside of an unprovable spiritual experience, no different than the Islamic fundamentalist’s, speaks for the Book of Mormon? What precepts from it can be found that are useful for people who reject its message? While scores of people reject that the Bible is the word of God, they do take from it some things, such as the Proverbs.

Lautensack

]]> By: Lautensack http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-2/#comment-5663 Lautensack Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:21:04 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5663 Amanda, There are a few things you stated that I would like to address. The first regarding the statement "but is the world and the matter of faith this black and white? I have come to realize that perhaps it isn’t, only to God who knows all things could make black and white conclusions. Since we are eternally limited, I think it is dangerous to make black and white conclusions regarding someone’s understanding of God and the legitimacy of their testimony." My question then is how can we know anything about God at all if we cannot say God said do this and not that? I used the example of killing babies to show my point, however in the spirit of fairness since you did say it was an emotional argument and I am inclined to agree, I will use one from recent history. If "God" told me, gave me a testimony that I should hijack an airplane and use it to blow up a building how could you invalidate that it was God telling me to do this? The Islamic fundamentalists who blew up the World Trade Centers did indeed sincerely believe that God had called them to do that. If we are simply appealing to "testimony" then you have no right to say that God did not tell them this. Thus we must conclude that somethings about God must be black and white and while it is God who truly determines who is saved and who is not, if nothing can be known from His word then what can be known of Him at all? Who is to say that the Islamic fundamentalists were not correct in their testimony? As for the fruits being the only evidence you need, you and I both know we could pick out scores of Mormons with less than desirable fruits, as we could do with Christians. By and by most of the Mormons I know are nice people and Christians look like ogres when we tell them they are wrong in their beliefs, however Jesus and the Apostles warn us of false teachers and tell us to avoid association with them. However your fruits argument fails to hold water because some of the most "moral" people I know are Buddhist. Amanda,
There are a few things you stated that I would like to address. The first regarding the statement “but is the world and the matter of faith this black and white? I have come to realize that perhaps it isn’t, only to God who knows all things could make black and white conclusions. Since we are eternally limited, I think it is dangerous to make black and white conclusions regarding someone’s understanding of God and the legitimacy of their testimony.”
My question then is how can we know anything about God at all if we cannot say God said do this and not that? I used the example of killing babies to show my point, however in the spirit of fairness since you did say it was an emotional argument and I am inclined to agree, I will use one from recent history. If “God” told me, gave me a testimony that I should hijack an airplane and use it to blow up a building how could you invalidate that it was God telling me to do this? The Islamic fundamentalists who blew up the World Trade Centers did indeed sincerely believe that God had called them to do that. If we are simply appealing to “testimony” then you have no right to say that God did not tell them this. Thus we must conclude that somethings about God must be black and white and while it is God who truly determines who is saved and who is not, if nothing can be known from His word then what can be known of Him at all? Who is to say that the Islamic fundamentalists were not correct in their testimony?
As for the fruits being the only evidence you need, you and I both know we could pick out scores of Mormons with less than desirable fruits, as we could do with Christians. By and by most of the Mormons I know are nice people and Christians look like ogres when we tell them they are wrong in their beliefs, however Jesus and the Apostles warn us of false teachers and tell us to avoid association with them. However your fruits argument fails to hold water because some of the most “moral” people I know are Buddhist.

]]> By: Daniel http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-2/#comment-5653 Daniel Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:52:15 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5653 Amanda, I'd like to follow up with something you said...you said that evangelicals place the Bible before what God thinks. Are you claiming that the two don't line up, that God thinks things that are different from what we have recorded in the Bible? Because as for me, I worship a God who doesn't change (or change his mind). If I "place the Bible before what God thinks," it is only to make sure that when I hear God speak to me, I want to make sure that I'm not listening to the devil. We would be naive to believe that God is the only one who can reveal to us "spiritual" thoughts or feelings, and God has given us the Bible as the litmus test, to know that if something contradicts the Bible, it cannot be true. We are commanded to test the spirits, and Paul commended those who searched the scriptures to confirm his message. I don't doubt that God speaks to people, and reveals things about himself to people today. But I do not believe that anything God chooses to say or reveal to us today is different from anything he chose to say or reveal 2000 years ago. The God I worship does not change. He doesn't have to. Amanda, I’d like to follow up with something you said…you said that evangelicals place the Bible before what God thinks. Are you claiming that the two don’t line up, that God thinks things that are different from what we have recorded in the Bible? Because as for me, I worship a God who doesn’t change (or change his mind). If I “place the Bible before what God thinks,” it is only to make sure that when I hear God speak to me, I want to make sure that I’m not listening to the devil. We would be naive to believe that God is the only one who can reveal to us “spiritual” thoughts or feelings, and God has given us the Bible as the litmus test, to know that if something contradicts the Bible, it cannot be true. We are commanded to test the spirits, and Paul commended those who searched the scriptures to confirm his message. I don’t doubt that God speaks to people, and reveals things about himself to people today. But I do not believe that anything God chooses to say or reveal to us today is different from anything he chose to say or reveal 2000 years ago. The God I worship does not change. He doesn’t have to.

]]> By: jer1414 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-5651 jer1414 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:29:03 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5651 Amanda you said "I was pointing out that you HAVE to have FAITH FIRST that these men... were inspired of God" This is true regarding the BoM, you have to believe it first, but this is not so for the Bible. Although there are nay-sayers when it comes to anything (Bible included), many non-Christians recognize the Bible as historically accurate. The Smithsonian Institute recognizes the Bible as a historical document. Read "Evidence the Demands a Verdict" if you'd like a better understanding of Biblical reliability. You said "I still believe that evangelicals place the bible before their own relationship with God", "they place the bible before what God thinks", "reject the notion that God makes His own decisions..." I’m sorry for your choosing these accusations, as they are false. You said “In terms of evidence for the Book of Mormon, the fruits of the spirit are the only evidence I need”. This would depend on considering only the “faith promoting fruits”. You said “Evidence evolves doesn’t it?” The problem for the Book of Mormon is that the “continuing evidence” is always revealing more and more that the book is not at all historical. Perhaps that is why the “most correct book” is in continual need of correction (most recently, being republished to modify the American Indians ‘principle’ ancestry). Lautensack summed it up quite nicely, “Unfortunately for LDS their testimony is not supported by evidence outside of their testimony.” Amanda you said “I was pointing out that you HAVE to have FAITH FIRST that these men… were inspired of God”

This is true regarding the BoM, you have to believe it first, but this is not so for the Bible. Although there are nay-sayers when it comes to anything (Bible included), many non-Christians recognize the Bible as historically accurate. The Smithsonian Institute recognizes the Bible as a historical document. Read “Evidence the Demands a Verdict” if you’d like a better understanding of Biblical reliability.

You said “I still believe that evangelicals place the bible before their own relationship with God”, “they place the bible before what God thinks”, “reject the notion that God makes His own decisions…”
I’m sorry for your choosing these accusations, as they are false.

You said “In terms of evidence for the Book of Mormon, the fruits of the spirit are the only evidence I need”.
This would depend on considering only the “faith promoting fruits”.

You said “Evidence evolves doesn’t it?”
The problem for the Book of Mormon is that the “continuing evidence” is always revealing more and more that the book is not at all historical. Perhaps that is why the “most correct book” is in continual need of correction (most recently, being republished to modify the American Indians ‘principle’ ancestry).

Lautensack summed it up quite nicely, “Unfortunately for LDS their testimony is not supported by evidence outside of their testimony.”

]]> By: lillym http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-5639 lillym Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:31:48 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5639 I was just reading this exchange (been away from this blog for a while). I came back here because I'm continually amazed by the way the Mormons ignore the complete fraud of the "book of Abraham". I'm completely at a loss to understand this among the Mormons. If there was indisputable proof that Mattew, Mark, Luke and John were frauds and who made up every word - I would have to reject Jesus as the messiah. And yet Mormons either don't know or don't care about the book of Abraham. I can understand why people who are born into Mormonism defend it and believe in it - I can't understand why a rational thinking adult would choose to join the church when this information is readily available. At this point I'm thinking there's nothing that can be done for someone like that, besides pray for them? (obviously asking this of the evangelicals here, as I understand the Mormons won't be sympathetic to this goal. :) ) I recently had a long conversation with a Jewish guy in Boston who studies religion. He regularly meets with followers of many faiths, and he met up with a whole group of Mormons who were on their missions. He told me that none of them actually "believe all that stuff about the seeing stones, or any of the stuff in the BoM." I was like "HUH? Of course they believe in the BoM!" and he went on to say that when he challenged them on many of these things, they brushed it off and told him that it wasn't important, and told him that they don't take Smith's work seriously?!!! So what's the deal? He's under the impression that the Mormons are a nice group of people who don't truly adhere to anything written in their books of scripture. LOL I was just at a loss for words on that one. I was just reading this exchange (been away from this blog for a while). I came back here because I’m continually amazed by the way the Mormons ignore the complete fraud of the “book of Abraham”.

I’m completely at a loss to understand this among the Mormons. If there was indisputable proof that Mattew, Mark, Luke and John were frauds and who made up every word – I would have to reject Jesus as the messiah.

And yet Mormons either don’t know or don’t care about the book of Abraham. I can understand why people who are born into Mormonism defend it and believe in it – I can’t understand why a rational thinking adult would choose to join the church when this information is readily available.

At this point I’m thinking there’s nothing that can be done for someone like that, besides pray for them? (obviously asking this of the evangelicals here, as I understand the Mormons won’t be sympathetic to this goal. :) )

I recently had a long conversation with a Jewish guy in Boston who studies religion. He regularly meets with followers of many faiths, and he met up with a whole group of Mormons who were on their missions. He told me that none of them actually “believe all that stuff about the seeing stones, or any of the stuff in the BoM.” I was like “HUH? Of course they believe in the BoM!” and he went on to say that when he challenged them on many of these things, they brushed it off and told him that it wasn’t important, and told him that they don’t take Smith’s work seriously?!!! So what’s the deal? He’s under the impression that the Mormons are a nice group of people who don’t truly adhere to anything written in their books of scripture.
LOL
I was just at a loss for words on that one.

]]> By: amanda http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-5638 amanda Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:29:12 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5638 "On top of that the bible is historically accurate" Which part of the bible? I would be more confident in the old testament than the new, given the early Christian politicking. However, this is my personal opinion, and not something I've heard at church. In terms of evidence for the Book of Mormon, the fruits of the spirit are the only evidence I need. As you suggested earlier, there are scholars who would disagree with Dr. Ehrman...suggesting there is evidence to say the opposite of what he postures in his opinions..the same standard needs to be applied to the so-called DNA "evidence" that many have hurriedly attempted to use against the validity of the Book of Mormon. Evidence evolves doesn't it? Sometimes evidence we have is incomplete yet we still try to draw a complete picture before we have a more complete context. Scientists and scholars have always been guilty of this. This phenomenon is therefore extremely problematic in having ANY confidence in what scholars say about evidence at any given time. Hence the need for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have never had a negative experience from following, or believing the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon. It has only brought true direction, love and joy into my life...nothing can negate this. And I would be ungrateful to not stand as a witness. I share it out of love, because I desire the same for my neighbors. These conversations can go around in circles...but the Book of Mormon stands solidly as the word of God- it speaks for itself. And no, after dictionary.com-ing it...I can't say I have a full grasp of existentialism-- I'll have to call my brother Aaron (I'll give you his number if you ever get cast on "who wants to be a millionaire"- he's my English language life-line). “On top of that the bible is historically accurate”

Which part of the bible? I would be more confident in the old testament than the new, given the early Christian politicking. However, this is my personal opinion, and not something I’ve heard at church.

In terms of evidence for the Book of Mormon, the fruits of the spirit are the only evidence I need. As you suggested earlier, there are scholars who would disagree with Dr. Ehrman…suggesting there is evidence to say the opposite of what he postures in his opinions..the same standard needs to be applied to the so-called DNA “evidence” that many have hurriedly attempted to use against the validity of the Book of Mormon. Evidence evolves doesn’t it? Sometimes evidence we have is incomplete yet we still try to draw a complete picture before we have a more complete context. Scientists and scholars have always been guilty of this. This phenomenon is therefore extremely problematic in having ANY confidence in what scholars say about evidence at any given time. Hence the need for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I have never had a negative experience from following, or believing the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon. It has only brought true direction, love and joy into my life…nothing can negate this. And I would be ungrateful to not stand as a witness. I share it out of love, because I desire the same for my neighbors. These conversations can go around in circles…but the Book of Mormon stands solidly as the word of God- it speaks for itself.

And no, after dictionary.com-ing it…I can’t say I have a full grasp of existentialism– I’ll have to call my brother Aaron (I’ll give you his number if you ever get cast on “who wants to be a millionaire”- he’s my English language life-line).

]]> By: amanda http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-5637 amanda Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:09:05 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5637 Lautensack, Ok, you got me. I was being intellectually lazy. I just skimmed through your response and made a bad conclusion as to what your point was. However, you must give me this...If existentialism meant what I decided it meant, I had a pretty good retort, eh? I owe you a more appropriate response, and will get to it in the next post, right after this one. Would I be negating my own testimony to say that well, your answers regarding the Book of Mormon are authentic as well? It's an uncomfortable reality but it seems one must come to this conclusion (as evangelicals often do) in order to remain consistent with their beliefs... but is the world and the matter of faith this black and white? I have come to realize that perhaps it isn't, only to God who knows all things could make black and white conclusions. Since we are eternally limited, I think it is dangerous to make black and white conclusions regarding someone's understanding of God and the legitimacy of their testimony. The only thing I can say is what I know, not what you know...and would expect the same intellectual honesty from you. (but not the same intellectual laziness from you as I displayed). So the my quote you referenced, I was merely suggesting what the words actually suggest. I believe that process is a good one for anyone to follow, but I can only answer for myself- not for others. I don't believe I was attempting to say, "so therefore, evangelicals don't trust prayer". I was just stating a principle/process I believe in. In terms of your scholarly references, I know they exist, and I am not attempting to marginalize them- I thought Doctor Ehrman's experience was unique to the conversation I thought we were having ;) (The thought of killing babies panders to emotional impact rather than rational impact. I don't think there is a that stark of a difference between what your faith dictates and what mine dictates) Lautensack,

Ok, you got me. I was being intellectually lazy. I just skimmed through your response and made a bad conclusion as to what your point was. However, you must give me this…If existentialism meant what I decided it meant, I had a pretty good retort, eh? I owe you a more appropriate response, and will get to it in the next post, right after this one.

Would I be negating my own testimony to say that well, your answers regarding the Book of Mormon are authentic as well? It’s an uncomfortable reality but it seems one must come to this conclusion (as evangelicals often do) in order to remain consistent with their beliefs… but is the world and the matter of faith this black and white? I have come to realize that perhaps it isn’t, only to God who knows all things could make black and white conclusions. Since we are eternally limited, I think it is dangerous to make black and white conclusions regarding someone’s understanding of God and the legitimacy of their testimony. The only thing I can say is what I know, not what you know…and would expect the same intellectual honesty from you. (but not the same intellectual laziness from you as I displayed). So the my quote you referenced, I was merely suggesting what the words actually suggest. I believe that process is a good one for anyone to follow, but I can only answer for myself- not for others. I don’t believe I was attempting to say, “so therefore, evangelicals don’t trust prayer”. I was just stating a principle/process I believe in.

In terms of your scholarly references, I know they exist, and I am not attempting to marginalize them- I thought Doctor Ehrman’s experience was unique to the conversation I thought we were having ;)

(The thought of killing babies panders to emotional impact rather than rational impact. I don’t think there is a that stark of a difference between what your faith dictates and what mine dictates)

]]> By: Lautensack http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-5633 Lautensack Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:35:39 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5633 Amanda darling, one I am not sure you understand what an "existential experience" is. I am pretty sure I never said "existential evidence" proved the bible, why because we all have existential experiences, please understand existentialism before making the statement that "a testimony of Joseph Smith is a gift of the Spirit–not the gift of “existential evidence”" and not confuse it with empiricism. I could feel that the HOLY GHOST testified to my heart to murder babies, could you tell me that I would be wrong to assume this was the HOLY GHOST? If so how would you prove it, your testimony? But I have my own, therefore who's is valid mine or yours? We all have "existential experiences" where we know in our "hearts" that it is God speaking to us, but ours conflict, therefore they both cannot be true, one or more must be false. Thus we, both you and I, use reason to interpret our experience to say it was the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately for LDS their testimony is not supported by evidence outside of their testimony. Does all the outside evidence prove the bible is inspired? No, but it lends a lot of weight, more than any other "inspired" religious text. Does someone's unbelief disprove the bible? Only if my unbelief that it is snowing outside disproves that is is snowing outside and I am going to have to snow blow. As for your scholar of course I could point to other scholars who would refute him, however I do challenge you to look up the work of Ivan Panin, Simon Greenleaf, and Sir Lionel Luckhoo. Oh and I am sorry for drawing the conclusion that evangelicals don't pray, perhaps a better conclusion would be that according to the following you believe they don't trust prayer. "You have to PRAY and ask your Heavenly Father, LIVE by its’ precepts and reap the fruits of that faith." Lautensack Amanda darling, one I am not sure you understand what an “existential experience” is. I am pretty sure I never said “existential evidence” proved the bible, why because we all have existential experiences, please understand existentialism before making the statement that “a testimony of Joseph Smith is a gift of the Spirit–not the gift of “existential evidence”” and not confuse it with empiricism. I could feel that the HOLY GHOST testified to my heart to murder babies, could you tell me that I would be wrong to assume this was the HOLY GHOST? If so how would you prove it, your testimony? But I have my own, therefore who’s is valid mine or yours? We all have “existential experiences” where we know in our “hearts” that it is God speaking to us, but ours conflict, therefore they both cannot be true, one or more must be false. Thus we, both you and I, use reason to interpret our experience to say it was the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately for LDS their testimony is not supported by evidence outside of their testimony. Does all the outside evidence prove the bible is inspired? No, but it lends a lot of weight, more than any other “inspired” religious text. Does someone’s unbelief disprove the bible? Only if my unbelief that it is snowing outside disproves that is is snowing outside and I am going to have to snow blow.

As for your scholar of course I could point to other scholars who would refute him, however I do challenge you to look up the work of Ivan Panin,
Simon Greenleaf, and Sir Lionel Luckhoo.

Oh and I am sorry for drawing the conclusion that evangelicals don’t pray, perhaps a better conclusion would be that according to the following you believe they don’t trust prayer. “You have to PRAY and ask your Heavenly Father, LIVE by its’ precepts and reap the fruits of that faith.”

Lautensack

]]> By: amanda http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-5631 amanda Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:02:50 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5631 Leutensack, I do not believe I have ever once claimed that Evangelicals do not pray...I would like you to quote me in this instance, because I believe any comments you might be referring to, are being taken out of context (inadvertently, perhaps). I adamantly disagree that the bible has "evidence" that it is divinely inspired...only the evidence that the Holy Ghost can bring. I will reference a very prominent scholar who once considered himself saved...Bart D. Ehrman. You should read a few of his books...it might interest and surprise you (however, I must state that I don't agree with the entirety of his perspective, I think it adds context to this discussion). After much research into bible history and this so -called evidence you claim exists, he became more confused as to whether the bible was actually scripture. Ironically, he followed the same evangelical belief that somehow evidence would exonerate the bible in its' claims- and ended up putting his trust in "evidence"- which failed him. This process he undergoes only outlines the point I am trying to make. Evangelicals are kidding themselves if they think they can PROVE the bible is scripture anymore than LDS can prove both the bible and BoM are scripture outside our own testimonies gathered through experiences with the Holy Ghost. Coming full-circle with other remarks that have been made, a personal relationship with God is more important than the bible itself. It is only inspired if our relationship with God dictates this reality to us. The same is true of the Book of Mormon, and the reality of a living prophet. Even a testimony of Joseph Smith is a gift of the Spirit--not the gift of "existential evidence". Many times it is suggested, on this site, that LDS just do what the prophet says without thinking. Follow blindly. When actually, it is our personal relationships with the Father that dictate this reality to us. We follow a prophet because the HOLY GHOST testified to our hearts. Leutensack,

I do not believe I have ever once claimed that Evangelicals do not pray…I would like you to quote me in this instance, because I believe any comments you might be referring to, are being taken out of context (inadvertently, perhaps).

I adamantly disagree that the bible has “evidence” that it is divinely inspired…only the evidence that the Holy Ghost can bring.

I will reference a very prominent scholar who once considered himself saved…Bart D. Ehrman. You should read a few of his books…it might interest and surprise you (however, I must state that I don’t agree with the entirety of his perspective, I think it adds context to this discussion). After much research into bible history and this so -called evidence you claim exists, he became more confused as to whether the bible was actually scripture. Ironically, he followed the same evangelical belief that somehow evidence would exonerate the bible in its’ claims- and ended up putting his trust in “evidence”- which failed him. This process he undergoes only outlines the point I am trying to make. Evangelicals are kidding themselves if they think they can PROVE the bible is scripture anymore than LDS can prove both the bible and BoM are scripture outside our own testimonies gathered through experiences with the Holy Ghost.

Coming full-circle with other remarks that have been made, a personal relationship with God is more important than the bible itself. It is only inspired if our relationship with God dictates this reality to us. The same is true of the Book of Mormon, and the reality of a living prophet. Even a testimony of Joseph Smith is a gift of the Spirit–not the gift of “existential evidence”. Many times it is suggested, on this site, that LDS just do what the prophet says without thinking. Follow blindly. When actually, it is our personal relationships with the Father that dictate this reality to us. We follow a prophet because the HOLY GHOST testified to our hearts.

]]> By: Lautensack http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-5622 Lautensack Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:41:41 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/01/myths-be-gone/#comment-5622 Jacob5, you clearly missed the entire point of my previous post about the Holy Name and Elohim. As for the miracles in the Bible, yes, we never found the ark, we never found a wooden structure from thousands of years ago. I don't know about you but I have seen a lot of dead wood rot and turn to "dirt" when just sitting out for a few, months. You point to the Red Sea being parted, well for that to have happened there must have been a Red Sea... oh we found that, right where the Bible said it was. Oh no, God preformed a Miracle of wrath, actually the glory of God's Wrath does not really fit with your theology does it? Then you assume that we do not believe the Miracles of Jesus who Christians believe was God, the Son of the Blessed One. Well of course Jesus had divine power, He also made the lame walk, the dumb speak, the deaf hear, and the dead rise. Now of course it takes faith to believe the miracles, I will give you that, but, God made the evidence for the Bible so clear you would have to be a fool to not believe it was the Word of God, the same cannot be said for the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's Prophecies, and certainly not the Book of Abraham. As for 1 Corinthians 1:18ff, you assert like the Greeks I seek wisdom, however you fail to see that most Mormons like the Jews require a sign, a wonder even if it is an experience within themselves. That is why Paul goes on, because it is Christ Crucified that is the wonder and wisdom of God. This of course is foolishness, which is why it is a stumbling block to so many, God's revealed Word in Jesus Christ and the Bible, not empiricism or reason, the two ways humans know things, but Revelation which is backed by both. Of course you faith does not hinge on my beliefs, nor should it ever, but how do you know it is God, do you test all spirits? Have you ever had a wonderful physical experience that turned out to be horrific in the end? If so could the same thing not be said of spiritual ones? Jacob5, you clearly missed the entire point of my previous post about the Holy Name and Elohim.
As for the miracles in the Bible, yes, we never found the ark, we never found a wooden structure from thousands of years ago. I don’t know about you but I have seen a lot of dead wood rot and turn to “dirt” when just sitting out for a few, months. You point to the Red Sea being parted, well for that to have happened there must have been a Red Sea… oh we found that, right where the Bible said it was. Oh no, God preformed a Miracle of wrath, actually the glory of God’s Wrath does not really fit with your theology does it? Then you assume that we do not believe the Miracles of Jesus who Christians believe was God, the Son of the Blessed One. Well of course Jesus had divine power, He also made the lame walk, the dumb speak, the deaf hear, and the dead rise. Now of course it takes faith to believe the miracles, I will give you that, but, God made the evidence for the Bible so clear you would have to be a fool to not believe it was the Word of God, the same cannot be said for the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s Prophecies, and certainly not the Book of Abraham.
As for 1 Corinthians 1:18ff, you assert like the Greeks I seek wisdom, however you fail to see that most Mormons like the Jews require a sign, a wonder even if it is an experience within themselves. That is why Paul goes on, because it is Christ Crucified that is the wonder and wisdom of God. This of course is foolishness, which is why it is a stumbling block to so many, God’s revealed Word in Jesus Christ and the Bible, not empiricism or reason, the two ways humans know things, but Revelation which is backed by both.
Of course you faith does not hinge on my beliefs, nor should it ever, but how do you know it is God, do you test all spirits? Have you ever had a wonderful physical experience that turned out to be horrific in the end? If so could the same thing not be said of spiritual ones?

]]>