Would it matter if your child was a skeptic:

[Guest]

What would you love your child to be: a happy skeptic or an unhappy christian. I'm reading a great book by Robin Lane Fox : The Unauthorized Version: truth and fiction in the Bible. This is a great read written by a historian and also an athiest. I have laughed outloud many times as he describes the jews and their scrolls and how it came to form the Christian Old Testament. It also describes how the New Testament came into being. I highly recommend this book.

As I read this book there are certain things that ring true for me. The part where priests are writing historical fiction and creating dialoge between God and Man. She refers to the Old Testament God as "Number One" as he has to be number one in everything and basically gives his okay for his followers to break up other religions religious alters and do all kinds of bad things - she refers to Number One and his little group of vandels.

I find reading alternative writings - those who don't follow the way of the old guard very liberating and actually have helped with my depression. What this gentleman writes has a real ring of truth. I also understand from that why I had so many problems in the LDS mission field. I was saying things I truely did not believe or ever really gave thought to: Telling people that the Church of Jesus Christ was restored by a Prophet named Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is God's word. How could one brought up in the Church think anything different.

Should LDS young adults be given a choice as they become young adults. Maybe they should start seminary in the eight grade with a year of being a healthy skeptic. you can be an athiest, a skeptic, or someone who beleives the Book of Mormon is the word of God and those coversations and actions described actually occured. Any choice would bring happiness to a parent as long as their kids are happy. some parents want a critical thinker and others just want their children to "follow the prophet"

It rings true to me that the Old Testament are writings basically of anonymous priests who then add a historical figure to it to make it sound important. The conversations described between God and man were created by priests - a form of creative writing between Number One and his followers.

Robin Lane Fox writes about Mark and his writing about Jesus. How Matthew tried to correct Mark; these people never envisioned their writings being together. he points out how Gallations is very likely written by Paul but other writings are clearly not Pauls but written by others and given Pauls name to make them seem important. he calls some early christian writers who did this liars. This makes sense if these are not actually the writings of Paul. But then it's possible that people in sacrament meeting are quoting a verse that was not written by Paul but a follower of Paul.

I guess going back to my orignal thought is if their are five children in an LDS family is it right for a family to want five children who believe that the words given to moses (if he really existed) between him and God are actually words that were spoken. If a child starts suffering from depression could it be that they always knew that their was no Santa Claus and now the child doesn't believe God talk to a person named moses but has to go meet with people who do each sunday for three hours. Is it okay and even encouraged for a child, then a young adult to say - I don't believe that those words were actually between a God and a follower called moses. That these were all creations of a group of Jews during exile or after the Persian King sent the Jews back to Israel. An ideal being that a parent can love a skeptic just like a returned missionary.

But then you bring in fear and Number One threatening, destroying and condemming unbelievers to eternal punishment.

The whole book also makes LDS writings and scripture so much more interesting. To say that the Book of Mormon has been changed is nothing compared to what was happening to the books of the Old Testatment. The were written, rewritten, embelished, redacted, "padded" and then given a historical name. They were written for the particular group at that time and again the authors never envisioned the scrolls put together to form a book. What is going on with LDS scripture happened with the New Testament from Mark until the councils and all through the Old Testament.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

But your child might be an unhappy skeptic. I know that the idea of God and religion was my rock when I was younger.

[_Ray A]

What would you love your child to be: a happy skeptic or an unhappy christian. I'm reading a great book by Robin Lane Fox : The Unauthorized Version: truth and fiction in the Bible. This is a great read written by a historian and also an athiest. I have laughed outloud many times as she describes the jews and their scrolls and how it came to form the Christian Old Testament. It also describes how the New Testament came into being. I highly recommend this book.

I've read it, interesting book. Robin Lane Fox is a guy.

[Guest]

Sometimes I wonder: If you believe the Bible is a bunch a myths from unknown writers - later given a historical name - why would you let someone teach that child that the stories are accurate history - is it good to teach your child to be a skeptic in the beginning and then later if they want to embrace a religious belief system then that is okay. But it's their choice then. It seems as though it's done backwards which might do more harm than good.

[_karl61]

What would you love your child to be: a happy skeptic or an unhappy christian. I'm reading a great book by Robin Lane Fox : The Unauthorized Version: truth and fiction in the Bible. This is a great read written by a historian and also an athiest. I have laughed outloud many times as she describes the jews and their scrolls and how it came to form the Christian Old Testament. It also describes how the New Testament came into being. I highly recommend this book.

I've read it, interesting book. Robin Lane Fox is a guy.

Thanks Ray - LOL at me.

[_karl61]

another funny from the book: Chapter 13 " From David to Paul"

"Unlike the Court History, D rites with an eye on the future, looking to the hope of a revival in Great David's royal line. 'And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do what is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did' (1 Kings 11:38): D makes God say these words to Solomon. What statutes are they, what commandments? David had coveted another man's wife, seduced her, lied, and arranged her husband's murder; his dying words include specific orders to pay off old debts by killing two legacies from his reign and bringing " his gray head down with blood to Sheol".

[_The Nehor]

another funny from the book: Chapter 13 " From David to Paul"

"Unlike the Court History, D rites with an eye on the future, looking to hope of a revival in Great David's royal line. 'And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do what is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did' (1 Kings 11:38): D makes God say these words to Solomon. What statutes are they, what commandments? David had coveted another man's wife, seduced her, lied, and arranged her husband's murder; his dying words include specific orders to pay off old debts by killing two legacies from his reign and bringing " his gray head down with blood to Sheol".

I take such passages with a grain of salt. It sounds like people in the U.S. talking about the glory days of the Founding Fathers and how far we have departed from them. It's normal for a people (any people) to look to the past (or the future) for some glory day when all was right. Hence the LDS have Pioneer Day and talk about the Millenium. David's reign was many things but it was not an ideal government leading to Solomon and Rehoboam destroying the kingdom with their desire for pomp.

[_karl61]

another funny from the book: Chapter 13 " From David to Paul"

"Unlike the Court History, D rites with an eye on the future, looking to hope of a revival in Great David's royal line. 'And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do what is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did' (1 Kings 11:38): D makes God say these words to Solomon. What statutes are they, what commandments? David had coveted another man's wife, seduced her, lied, and arranged her husband's murder; his dying words include specific orders to pay off old debts by killing two legacies from his reign and bringing " his gray head down with blood to Sheol".

I take such passages with a grain of salt. It sounds like people in the U.S. talking about the glory days of the Founding Fathers and how far we have departed from them. It's normal for a people (any people) to look to the past (or the future) for some glory day when all was right. Hence the LDS have Pioneer Day and talk about the Millenium. David's reign was many things but it was not an ideal government leading to Solomon and Rehoboam destroying the kingdom with their desire for pomp.

Nehor, I think the issue is that we go to the Bible for inspiration. From the Bible we are suppose to learn the difference between good and evil. The stories of David are very selective - he, like Nephi, had a thing for cutting off people's heads. Is going into the Bible like going into a liquor store - there might be some good things like 7-up but there are so bad things too. We are told of all the good - it makes you feel bad when you don't live up to that ideal - but it appears to be a false ideal - since these guys were pretty brutal.

[_The Nehor]

another funny from the book: Chapter 13 " From David to Paul"

"Unlike the Court History, D rites with an eye on the future, looking to hope of a revival in Great David's royal line. 'And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do what is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did' (1 Kings 11:38): D makes God say these words to Solomon. What statutes are they, what commandments? David had coveted another man's wife, seduced her, lied, and arranged her husband's murder; his dying words include specific orders to pay off old debts by killing two legacies from his reign and bringing " his gray head down with blood to Sheol".

I take such passages with a grain of salt. It sounds like people in the U.S. talking about the glory days of the Founding Fathers and how far we have departed from them. It's normal for a people (any people) to look to the past (or the future) for some glory day when all was right. Hence the LDS have Pioneer Day and talk about the Millenium. David's reign was many things but it was not an ideal government leading to Solomon and Rehoboam destroying the kingdom with their desire for pomp.

Nehor, I think the issue is that we go to the Bible for inspiration. From the Bible we are suppose to learn the difference between good and evil. The stories of David are very selective - he, like Nephi, had a thing for cutting off people's heads. Is going into the Bible like going into a liquor store - there might be some good things like 7-up but there are so bad things too. We are told of all the good - it makes you feel bad when you don't live up to that ideal - but it appears to be a false ideal - since these guys were pretty brutal.

I think the lesson to be learned is that there are no good guys and no bad guys. Some try, some don't. Some do well, some fail. If there is one thing I could crack in LDS culture it would be the demigod status of scriptural figures. Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, and Moroni aren't giving us the record because it's a success story. They send it to us because they think it's a story of what NOT to do. In the Bible I do find inspiration along with pain as I watch my ancestors screw up time and time again. I only hope that somehow we get it right this time.

The Scriptures teach commandments but for good and evil I think the best method of tutoring is to try to be good and get in touch with all that is good (i.e. God). Righteous people know something about good and evil. They want goodness very badly and through combating evil have learned it's tactics and stratagems. The wicked live sheltered, naïve lives. They don't seek good and evil just sort of happens.

I should say that I think the difference between the righteous and the wicked is that the first repent and the latter do not. I've met wicked "good" people and righteous "bad" people. While I think the ideal route to this repentance is through an understanding of the atonement I have met those out of the Church who do repent without it. They forsake that which is evil about them and seek the good constantly. I'm considered to be a "good" person but I wonder how much of this is simple upbringing, genetics, and being in an amiable environment where those traits were prized. Gotta keep repenting.