Maklelan: MAD's Version of Mark Hofmann?

[_maklelan]

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?

No, James White uses much more condescending, vicious, and bigoted personal attacks.

You don't like to be challenged - especially by a woman I'm sure.

I have had females challenging me all my life, and I have no problem with it whatsoever. What I have a problem with is your ignorant bigotry.

And yes, I'm retired, and love to debate Mormons, you have a problem with that Mak?

It is a monstrous waste of time. That you berate other Mormons for wasting their time defending Mormonism while you waste far more time not defending but attacking is very sad.

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.

You don't have to research my credentials. I've been asked for them many times and I've provided them. Also, you're not researching my beliefs. No one goes to LinkedIn to find out about personal religious beliefs.

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!

Again you flippantly dismiss my numerous explanations to you of why I won't play your silly games and attempt to spin it to mean something you know very well it doesn't mean.

[Guest]

For Mormon Discussion Posters: The battlefield between the Christian Church and Mormon claims is on the internet.

No, that's more of a game than a battlefield. The only real significant conflict is between religion and reason. Fundie Christians fighting with Mormons is just petty sectarianism.

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.

No, that's a pretext for trying to find some way to rhetorically undermine arguments that are so far over your head you can only see contrails.

Daniel is well educated - even at Oxford. Very intelligent guy, I'm sure.

Higher Criticism is, itself, a belief system.

Oh, not this garbage.

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.

What gets old is your unilateral claims that you don't have to defend your Bible, followed by me being banned for talking about the Bible.

You see folks, the Bible is a historical narrative with real people and real events and real geographical locations.

Combined with demonstrably non-real narratives, people, events, and locations. Since the entirety of the Christian faith rests on faith claims that have absolutely no evidentiary support whatsoever, the difference you're trying to construct is absolutely and utterly irrelevant.

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.

I'm not justifying anything, I'm just pointing out the fallacies of your accusations.

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!

And the readers will judge you as a fundamentalist nutjob. You're not among friends anymore, Catherine. You're not going to find mods coddling and protecting you from the mean man.

[_maklelan]

I also believe that it is inerrant in the original autographs.

And that's demonstrably false. Every time I've pointed that out you've refused to engage my concerns and have demanded that I stop talking about the Bible. That's around the time I get banned for being off-topic.

[_maklelan]

I understand his approach quite well.

That's laughable. You don't even know what field I work in, much less what kind of methodologies I use or how those methodologies are applied.

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.

You never read that book by Kenton Sparks to which I directed you. You should before you start asserting those demonstrable falsehoods all over the place.

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!

Well, I guess if you say so.

I simply think the higher critics' case is in error since they discount the supernatural.

That's not true at all, and if you understood critical methodologies at all then you wouldn't mischaracterize them like that.

Anything supernatural is open to question, and not only question, but to denial. It ultimately ends in some theological limbo between agnosticism and atheism.

If thinking that actually makes you feel better about your anti-intellectualism, be my guest. No one who understands critical methodologies takes such nonsense seriously.

So, where does that leave Mormonism?

Same place as all other religions.

[_maklelan]

No they are not.

The Exodus demonstrably never happened. The world was demonstrably not created according to the descriptions in Genesis 1 or 2. Deuteronomy was demonstrably not written by anyone at all associated with any Moses. Sennacherib's army was demonstrably never annihilated by an angel. The list goes on and on and on.

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.

Oh, the testimony of the Bible's truth is validated by the Bible's testimony? Brilliant.

I would bet, of course, that you really don't believe that, right?

Are you a Mormon still?

Are you capable of thinking critically about anything related to the Bible?

[_maklelan]

The difference between Christianity and Mormonism lies in the fact that Christianity deals with actual facts, a historical narrative.

Laughable.

Mormonism is mythical. There can be no comparison, anymore than there is a comparison between the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Alice Through the Looking Glass!

This is becoming comical.

[_maklelan]

If I wanted to discuss the Bible with you, friend, it wouldn't be here on a Mormon forum. You can come over to CARM, set, up an account, and we'll be glad to answer your questions. Thank you for your interest in the Bible.

No, you guys don't like to talk about the Bible when someone who knows more about it than you do. You just demand I not talk about the Bible in response to your claims about the Bible in reference to Mormonism. Then you find ways to ban me as quickly as possible.

[_cwald]

The difference between Christianity and Mormonism lies in the fact that Christianity deals with actual facts, a historical narrative.

Laughable.

Mormonism is mythical. There can be no comparison, anymore than there is a comparison between the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Alice Through the Looking Glass!

This is becoming comical.

It's been comical for a while now. An entire thread debating which mythology is less unbelievable.

The Bible being a witness and evidence that the Bible itself is historical has always been a favorite of mine.

[_Servant]

So one wonders, mak, why you are making a career of studying the Bible if you consider it to be packed full of myths. Although, my friend, you still haven't touched upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That will always stand as the big question mark for you and the rest of those posting here (most seem to be agnostics). If He did overcome death, then the Christian stands on solid ground affirming God's Word. If He did not, then Paul's words are true:

1 Cor. 15: . 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith doesn’t mean anything. Your sins have not been forgiven. 18 Those who have died believing in Christ are also lost.

Have you read Bonhoeffer - I once suggested that you do. He said:

"The Cross is not the terrible end of a pious happy life. Instead, it stands at the beginning of community with Jesus Christ. Whenever Christ calls us, his call leads us to death."

You see, mak, it's in willingness to set ourselves aside, to actually die to ourselves, where we really find life. I hope you do some day.

[_Servant]

I've never posted as anybody other than "Servant."

I was not accusing you of such, Servant.

So, do you also disbelieve the Bible, and are there any Mormons on this forum who actually believe the Bible?

I think you are mistaken about this forum, Servant. From what I have observed, almost all forum members here are no longer believing Mormons.

I am, however, and I hold the Bible to be the word of God, like all Mormons do.

The Book of Mormon is no more validated by Christ's resurrection than the Quran is validated by it.

I see. So just making assertions makes them true? What if I modified your quote like this:

The Bible is no more validated by Christ's resurrection than the Lord of the Rings is validated by it.

Apparently your claim that "all Mormons" consider the Bible to be the Word of God is simply untrue - since this forum has members at least that obviously do not. Your argument isn't with me then, its with your Mormon friends here.