Maklelan: MAD's Version of Mark Hofmann?

[Guest]

I want to know if you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And I have told you literally dozens of times exactly why I will not play your games. You don't seem to care.

If you refuse to answer that simple question, I'll leave it up to your fellow Mormons here to judge your failure to respond. And by the way, I've had Mormons track me down on Facebook and elsewhere. So what? If you don't want people looking at what you post about yourself or your beliefs, take it down! You seem to love publicizing yourself.

You misunderstand. I really don't care that you looked at my LinkedIn profile. I was pointing it out because you've been griping about how much defenders of Mormonism are wasting their, while you've been making good use of your retirement years. I wouldn't call cyberstalking me to be a good use of your time, but you literally waste most of your day vomiting up bigotry all over the internet, so your gauge of what is and isn't a good use of your time obviously has some calibration issues.

Cyberstalking YOU? You have a high opinion of yourself fellow? I do research those who claim to be "teachers" and come to Christian sites to teach? Is there something wrong with that? Ingenius use of the words "vomiting" and "bigotry." You didn't throw in "sectarian" this time. How about "regurgitate," another one of your useful put downs! I'm sure you can think of some more CHILDISH CYBER TRASH TALK TO USE! It really demonstrates a lack of security (and, I believe, academic immaturity) to resort to the nasty posting tactics you use. Do you ever see Dr. White use such silly personal attacks against those who challenge him? You don't like to be challenged - especially by a woman I'm sure.

And yes, I'm retired, and love to debate Mormons, you have a problem with that Mak? If you don't want your credentials or beliefs researched, then don't proclaim all over the net that you are some kind of authority. On the other hand, if you want to be secretive about your beliefs, and don't believe they pertain in any way to your claim to be an authority, so be it. In the end, of course, it will all come out in the wash!

[Guest]

For Mormon Discussion Posters: The battlefield between the Christian Church and Mormon claims is on the internet. That is why I have posted here. When a Mormon shows up on a Christian site claiming to be an academic authority, then Christians not only have the right, but the duty to research that individuals motivations and education. Daniel is well educated - even at Oxford. Very intelligent guy, I'm sure.

Higher Criticism is, itself, a belief system. When "talking donkeys" and "floating axes" are used over and over again to cast the Bible into the same mold as the "Book of Mormon" it gets old fast. You see folks, the Bible is a historical narrative with real people and real events and real geographical locations. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is not historical at all, since Nephites and so forth are mythical. It's a form of 19th century pious fiction.

It does no good to put down the Bible in order to justify belief in the Book of Mormon, or to justify being a Mormon. The Bible is not in the same category as the the Book of Mormon, and never will be. So the bottom line is this - if maklelan wants to go to CARM and "teach," then I should be extended the same courtesy here, right? But I promise not to use derogatory language with the Mormons here who extend that courtesy. For after all, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the Biblical admonition.

As for being a "sectarian" and a "fundamentalist/fundie," vomiting out regurgitated teachings I've sucked up from my authoritarian, "mindless sectarian" masters, I'll leave that to the readers to judge!

[_SteelHead]

Whee fun.

Is the Bible an authoritative historical source that Jesus was a real person? Abraham? Noah?

[_Servant]

Whee fun.

Is the Bible an authoritative historical source that Jesus was a real person? Abraham? Noah?

Yes, I believe the Bible is an authoritative source; I also believe that it is inerrant in the original autographs. I believe the Holy Spirit has led, and continues to lead, the Christian Church, the Body of Christ, into all truth. I assume you do not since you believe that is "whee fun?"

[_SteelHead]

In the sense of history as a science, no the Bible is not an authoritative source. Though you might "believe" it is, it can not historically establish the existence of any of the people I listed.

[_Servant]

In the sense of history as a science, no the Bible is not an authoritative source. Though you might "believe" it is, it can not historically establish the existence of any of the people I listed.

Well, we disagree. I believe it contains all things necessary for salvation. I believe that God has used the Written Word, and the Incarnate Word, to transmit His truths to makind. Jesus seemed to believe the Bible, don't you think?

[_SteelHead]

We are not talking about belief. We are talking about history. Events documented decades, centuries, and in the case of Abraham, melinia after the fact do not rise to the level of historical.

By your logic of real geographical places, the pantheon of gods on Olympus is real.

I know there is an invisible pink fire breathing dragon dwelling in my garage. This claim is as valid and demonstrable as biblical claims about the true god.

Mak is a highly educated academic and higher criticism is an approach that you obviously do not understand. You are speaking past each other, just as when I note the Bible is not a historical source. As you do not understand the definition of historical source.

[_Servant]

We are not talking about belief. We are talking about history. Events documented decades, centuries, and in the case of Abraham, melinia after the fact do not rise to the level of historical.

By your logic of real geographical places, the pantheon of gods on Olympus is real.

I know there is an invisible pink fire breathing dragon dwelling in my garage. This claim is as valid and demonstrable as biblical claims about the true god.

Mak is a highly educated academic and higher criticism is an approach that you obviously do not understand. You are speaking past each other, just as when I note the Bible is not a historical source. As you do not understand the definition of historical source.

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, but I was out burning a few heretics.

I understand his approach quite well. Prove the Bible to be false, and you justify the Book of Mormon. It doesn't take a knowledge of brain surgery to figure that out. Now, as far as the Bible goes, there are many "highly trained" academics who disagree with higher criticism, and believe the Scriptures. So, unless you want to match up a list of "highly trained academics, I think it would be silly to go there. By the way, I know John Spong (he was my bishop), have read his stuff, and I think he'd fit into the category of a "very highly trained academic." But he's wrong! I simply think the higher critics' case is in error since they discount the supernatural. Anything supernatural is open to question, and not only question, but to denial. It ultimately ends in some theological limbo between agnosticism and atheism.

So, where does that leave Mormonism?

[_SteelHead]

Where? I don't care. Both are made up mythologies. Each squabbling that it is true. Both suffer from a lack of evidence, anachronisms, and historically unsupportable claims. The problems found in the Book of Mormon are also present in the Bible.

[_Servant]

Where? I don't care. Both are made up mythologies. Each squabbling that it is true. Both suffer from a lack of evidence, anachronisms, and historically unsupportable claims. The problems found in the Book of Mormon are also present in the Bible.

No they are not. The Bible is not some obviously made-up piece of literature written by an occultist in the 19th century. The New Testament, especially, my friend, was written by people who were experiencing the events as they unfolded. The testimony to the Bible's truth is validated by Christ's resurrection from the dead - and this is why I've brought this issue up. I would bet, of course, that you really don't believe that, right?

Are you a Mormon still?