A Very Limited Geography

[_Kishkumen]

Nope, just an organizational structure and a bunch of guidelines and stuff... not like a church at all.

Prove it.

[_Kishkumen]

In light of this damning argument, you simply tuck tail and run.

Simon, that is hardly an argument.

[_Baker]

I honestly don't know how you guys do it. He's such a vacuous cow that it drains me to interact with him. Au revoir, Monsieur Belmont.

I see. So you say that Dr. Southerton's writings helped you realize the "truth" about Mormonism. I, in turn, say that LDS scientists have strengthened my testimony of the "truth" about Mormonism. In light of this damning argument, you simply tuck tail and run.

It's no wonder you try to act more intelligent than you actually are. If people knew the truth you'd be laughed off the board.

The really sad thing about that is that it's really hard to believe that they aren't swallowing their own puke when they write that stuff. I suspect they know better and are just providing a service to those who are strengthened by their assurances.

[_Themis]

The really sad thing about that is that it's really hard to believe that they aren't swallowing their own puke when they write that stuff.

I know. I have wondered that so many time when reading some fair or farms article. Runtu's thread really brought that out.

I suspect they know better and are just providing a service to those who are strengthened by their assurances.

After a while I to realized that many apologists were writing their very poor arguments just to make believers feel assured. :)

[_Simon Belmont]

Prove it.

Read the Bible.

[_harmony]

Prove it.

Read the Bible.

Why is this applicable to this conversation?

[_Kishkumen]

Prove it.

Read the Bible.

So you have no argument. I am not surprised.

[_Milesius]

I have no doubt LOTS of people lived thousands of years ago. However, I've yet to see anything resembling proof that a man named Abraham did, and that there is any resemblance to truth regarding said individual in the stories in the Bible.

Who are you to say Abraham never existed? Oral tradition is conservative. In any event, what is most ridiculous about your initial post is the suggestion that Abraham and the Book of Mormon characters are in the same boat when they manifestly are not. Abraham is at least contextually credible. By way of contrast, the latter are not remotely contextually credible.

Your failure to distinguish between the two cases is telling, but then again, it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.

[_Kishkumen]

The evidence for a historical Abraham who did the things attributed to him in the Bible is shakier by far than the evidence for the historical Jesus. What we find in the Bible is probably the latest version of a tradition of tales about a hero named Abraham, which evolved over time and took a number of forms. The form it takes in the Bible addresses the concerns of the time. It is not an absolute, invariable truth, or even particularly well established, that oral tradition is set in stone. Indeed, it is clear that there can be a great deal of creativity involved in each poet's retelling.

I guess one can have faith that by some miracle the story of a fellow named Abraham was preserved intact until it was committed to the written versions that resulted in the Biblical text. Where miracles are concerned, I suppose anything is possible, if that is what you would like to believe.

[_sock puppet]

The evidence for a historical Abraham who did the things attributed to him in the Bible is shakier by far than the evidence for the historical Jesus. What we find in the Bible is probably the latest version of a tradition of tales about a hero named Abraham, which evolved over time and took a number of forms. The form it takes in the Bible addresses the concerns of the time. It is not an absolute, invariable truth, or even particularly well established, that oral tradition is set in stone. Indeed, it is clear that there can be a great deal of creativity involved in each poet's retelling.

I guess one can have faith that by some miracle the story of a fellow named Abraham was preserved intact until it was committed to the written versions that resulted in the Biblical text. Where miracles are concerned, I suppose anything is possible, if that is what you would like to believe.

Mormonism has a higher stake in whether there really was 'a fellow named Abraham' whose story is told in Genesis of the Old Testament, than do other religions that espouse the Old Testament as scripture. JSJr's dalliance in 1835-36, -42 with the Egyptian papyrus and claiming a resulting translation to be the Book of Abraham provides a "second witness", one "from god" in the 19th Century. For Mormons claiming the BoAbr is the 'word of god' and true and accurate, they must then take most if not all of the Old Testament literally. The BoAbr has many of the same elements in it as does the Genesis account of Abraham. If that part of the oral tradition survived in tact until it was written down, then why doubt other portions of that oral tradition, as written down as well?

This maneuver by JSJr leaves Mormonism in the corner of literalism when it comes to the Old Testament. Other faiths can dismiss it, particularly the thornier points like the creation and the flood. They can point to the fact it was an oral tradition and subject to the vagaries of it. Mormonism however is boxed in to having to try and claim that the Genesis account of Abraham, at least to the extent validated by the BoAbr ("by his own hand"), came through that oral tradition unscathed but that the creation and the flood did not. However, such an inconsistent approach is easily assailable as merely confirmation bias, and thus must be avoided. This places Mormonism in the same position as the literalist, fundamentalist faiths that rely on the Old Testament.

In sum, because JSJr produced the BoAbr, he made most if not all of the Genesis account of Abraham a 'hill worth dying on' for TBMs and mopologists.