Inside Mormonism

[_Boaz & Lidia]

None of what Millet spouts will stick to a chapel wall if it is not socially acceptable.

Put the Mormon leaders feet to the fire and they will say the interview was merely his personal opinion.

Listen to him teach how to tap dance: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8

[_JAK]

There were lots of things I disagreed with, but mainly that he didn't seem to be answering the questions put forth. He wasn't even cleaver about it. The woman didn't even notice she just carried on. I would have argued.

Regarding your last comment about Krista Tippett, she always gives respect to her guests whether atheist or Muslim or Christian (or some denomination, sect, or cult of that denomination).

While many on this forum would have argued, Krista Tippett does a show every week with different religious views. So while that’s what you would have done (and I would have done), we are not presenting a show every week titled “Speaking of Faith.”

Therefore, while you have a valid point, she, too, has a valid response to all of her guests as she treats them with respect.

If you listen to the entire program (55 minutes), she does ask some penetrating questions which are dodged or evaded. A favorite phrase of this “Mormon scholar” is that: We believe that…. Of course that begs the question of why you believe that. In spite of the fact that he has six children and has written books and has gone through BYU, he evades questions by assertion of what we believe.

So, Krista Tippett simply listens and moves forward to a next question for Millet.

JAK

[_JAK]

Dartagnan stated:
Now Millett is pandering to Evangelicals. This is simply false. Jesus and Satan were on the same plane when they were created by Elohim. What set Jesus apart was that he was chosen, after Elohhim accepted his proposed plan over that of Satan. Then Satan rebelled and was kicked out.

JAK:
I’m skeptical that Millet is “pandering to Evangelicals.” As for the claim you state here: “Jesus and Satan were on the same plane…” that’s all an appeal to truth by assertion. No clear, transparent evidences has been presented for “Satan.” And the fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was an historical Jesus. It became a story passed down for decades before anyone considered the story important enough to put into some language. AND we have no original scripts, only stories long after the fact and, more importantly, only translations after the fact for the multiple and contradictory claims contained within the many denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity.

You appear to speak of religious myth as if there were some genuine fact there. There is none which can stand the tests of clear, transparent, skeptical review.


JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

And the fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was an historical Jesus.JAK

You're wrong here. Paul's epistles discuss Jesus and were written prior to 30 years after his death.

[_harmony]

You appear to speak of religious myth as if there were some genuine fact there. There is none which can stand the tests of clear, transparent, skeptical review.

He's speaking of LDS doctrine, as LDS believe it to be. I'm not sure why you are unable to differentiate between facts and LDS facts.

[_JAK]

And the fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was an historical Jesus.JAK

You're wrong here. Paul's epistles discuss Jesus and were written prior to 30 years after his death.

Incorrect analysis, RMB.

See this

Add This

Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself. As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.

Authorship and date disputed

Pauline authorship of Colossians has found some critics. It was originally doubted by F. C. Baur, though others working from his general thesis, such as H. J. Holtzmann, argued that an original brief Pauline text experienced many interpolations by a later editor. The basis for this early objection was that the letter aimed at refuting Gnosticism, a heresy not serious until the early second century.

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

And the fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was an historical Jesus.JAK

You're wrong here. Paul's epistles discuss Jesus and were written prior to 30 years after his death.

Incorrect analysis, RMB.

See this

Add This

Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself. As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.

Authorship and date disputed

Pauline authorship of Colossians has found some critics. It was originally doubted by F. C. Baur, though others working from his general thesis, such as H. J. Holtzmann, argued that an original brief Pauline text experienced many interpolations by a later editor. The basis for this early objection was that the letter aimed at refuting Gnosticism, a heresy not serious until the early second century.

JAK

You wrote NOTHING. None of your sources refute the assertion that SOME of Paul's epistles were written prior to thirty years after Jesus' death. If I missed an argument to this effect, please show it to me again. Arguments about the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are irrelevant here.

[_JAK]

You appear to speak of religious myth as if there were some genuine fact there. There is none which can stand the tests of clear, transparent, skeptical review.

He's speaking of LDS doctrine, as LDS believe it to be. I'm not sure why you are unable to differentiate between facts and LDS facts.

Harmony,

You offer no refutation here.

My reference was to the specific statement of Dartagnan.

Dartagnan stated:
Now Millett is pandering to Evangelicals. This is simply false. Jesus and Satan were on the same plane when they were created by Elohim. What set Jesus apart was that he was chosen, after Elohhim accepted his proposed plan over that of Satan. Then Satan rebelled and was kicked out.

Religious doctrine/dogma remains truth by assertion. That is contrary to the methodology for accessing genuine facts.

harmony stated:
He's (Millet) speaking of LDS doctrine, as LDS believe it to be. I'm not sure why you are unable to differentiate between facts and LDS facts.

On the contrary, I do differentiate. Historical facts are not determined by religious doctrine. It is a fact that we have religious doctrine/dogma.

However, religious doctrines, thousands of them, are in varying ways fractured and do not agree with one another. So we have some genuinely established evidence.

Then we have truth by assertion. That applies to LDS notions of beliefs which do not withstand the tests of clear, transparent, skeptical review. They are merely claims. Other religious groups make claims as well. None is reliable. What a religious group claims as fact in support of its doctrines does not stand the test of objective analysis. Therefore, such doctrines do not stand as fact but rather as expression of a particular religious denomination, sect, or cult holding to a particular religious bias.

Hence, if a claim is unsupported by objective evidence, it’s unreliable and does not comport with genuine fact as acquired by objective, analytical, and unbiased examination.

That’s the differentiation, harmony.

JAK

[_harmony]

You appear to speak of religious myth as if there were some genuine fact there. There is none which can stand the tests of clear, transparent, skeptical review.

He's speaking of LDS doctrine, as LDS believe it to be. I'm not sure why you are unable to differentiate between facts and LDS facts.

Harmony,

You offer no refutation here.

*sigh*... JAK, I had no intention of offering refutation. I'm simply telling you that Dartagnan is giving information that is fact to LDS people. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

[_Coggins7]

Now Millett is pandering to Evangelicals. This is simply false. Jesus and Satan were on the same plane when they were created by Elohim. What set Jesus apart was that he was chosen, after Elohhim accepted his proposed plan over that of Satan. Then Satan rebelled and was kicked out.

I always suspected that you were either a fool or a knave Dartagnon, but now the cat is really out of the bag, and you're no fool. There is no such doctrine, and never has been, to the effect that Lucifer and Jesus were on the "same plane" in the preexistence. The church has always taught that Lucifer was an advanced and glorious spirit being, but there is no teaching that he was in any way equal to or had equivalent standing with Jesus Christ. Millet is being perfectly honest; Jesus Christ had advanced to the position of God. He was the God of the universe and its creator and sustainer. There is no doctrine or official teaching of any kind mentioning Lucifer as having attained this level of development. You're on a fishing expedition of nick picking, ultra sensitively tuned criticism against someone because his scholarly abilities and testimony clash head on with your own personal animus and it bugs you to the very core. Do you really expect to be able to get away with this kind of, uh...pandering, with people like myself who have been in the Church all of their lives?

Anything for you own self anointed cause, eh Dartagnon? Any straw to grasp, any words to twist, any offense for any word you can find.

You have no moral credibility with anyone who has any of their own Dartagnon. You continue to sink ethically, post by post, prevarication by prevarication, disingenuity by disngenuity into the boiling maelstrom of exmormon hatred, bigotry, fanaticism, and simmering obsession that fairly defines the mentality.

Soon this board will have sunken to the abyssal level of RFM, and will be populated only by things, like our present subject, that go bump in the anti-Mormon night.