Would God do that?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

How else are you going to approach it when you KNOW (8th article of faith) that there are inaccuracies, you don't know exactly what they are, and you have additional witnesses confirming the important truths that are contained in it?

I've already explained this.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think the bottom line is, we don't have to look to the Bible for historical accuracy. It is a religious document, the importance of which is as a record of religious principles. Does not the very existence of the Book of Mormon speak to that? The Book of Mormon is a testament of the gospel principles originally contained in the books of the Bible, not of the historical events occurring in it, except to the extent that there is overlap between the historical events of the Book of Mormon and Bible.

It is a sacred document, but not as a historical record of events. If you start looking at it as more than that, you run the risk of reading something into it that was not intended. Isn't that sort of how the Crusades were justified?

I don't see a need to separate the book's value historically vs. spiritually. I don't think it has to be one verses the other ... in fact, one can reinforce the other.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You know what's interesting - the Savior spoke in parables. He told stories with no historical basis at all in order to teach spiritual truths. To the Savior, then, it was the spiritual truths that were important. It makes no difference whether there was an actual widow who donated two mites, or whether a Samaritan really did help an injured Jew. Historical accuracy had nothing to do with the spiritual truths that the Savior was teaching.

I don't see your correlation.

That is a confusing comparison. I'm not sure the parables Jesus told were ever intended to be read as actual events. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't. I don't think that has any relation to the stories of the Old Testament.

I think there's value in realizing they were real people. I think by saying, "Were they real or not? Who cares! It's the lesson that counts!" we lose something.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Doesn't the Book of Mormon confirm the truths of the Bible? I think you've got things reversed. Something that is another testmant of the Savior and of the gospel is meant to confirm the truth - not to disprove what is false.

And that is exactly how I'm treating it.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Let's say I have a witness in a legal case. He had 5 salient points to his testimony. I bring in a second witness who we know we can trust, who testifies to the veracity of 2 of them. What of the other three points? They are neither proved nor disproved by the second witness.

If we know that there are some portions of the first witness' testimony that are incorrect, and all we have to go on are the two witnesses, all we have done is narrow down the portions of the first witness' testimony which are inaccurate. The reliability of the first witness has been strengthened as to the points addressed by the second witness, but not as to the remainder of his testimony (knowing that an unknown portion is unreliable).

You're not going to be able to determine which unaddressed portions of the Bible are accurate by referring to the Book of Mormon - you can only confirm the truths that are common to them.

Which is why I think it's fair to assume that the so called "unaddressed" portions of the Bible are true until otherwise indicated. I reject the notion that just because story X or doctrine Y is mentioned in the Bible but in no other book of scripture, that it must de facto fall under suspicion of errancy.

I'm starting to repeat myself here. I think we've each made our points; neither is going to convince the other.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think I've made it clear that I take the Bible at face value, except where otherwise commented on by church leadership.

Instead of quoting to me every strange or unusual event in the entire book and asking me "Do you believe THIS??", could you just answer the question?

So your list of strange events is OK, but not Mike's single question? Why not answer Mike's question?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So your list of strange events is OK, but not Mike's single question? Why not answer Mike's question?

Because the purpose of the thread was to find out what other people think. You ought to try it sometime.

[fusnik11]

Tex, don't you believe that we shouldn't hold ourselves to the standards or expectations or opinions of the early saints? (One of your reasons to dismiss Adam/God if I recall)

I think it's obvious that the AOF are dated and we, nor you, should be held to the opinions of the early saints. It's time to move into the 21st century.

In this century we have discovered that the Bible, Old and New Testament are very poor historical records.

I see most scripture as allegory with very little historical value. On top of that I doubt God wanted people sliced up for his glory, or whole peoples wiped out, or mass murder in his name. If he does and we are God's people get me the hell away from this church as the same God should soon be asking us to mass murder some group that opposes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Because the purpose of the thread was to find out what other people think. You ought to try it sometime.

OK, here we go:

1) Do you believe that the ancient Patriarchs lived 500+ years?

2) Do you believe that a prophet (or God) would cause a bear to kill a bunch of little kids for teasing said prophet about his bald spot?

3) Do you believe in Noah's ark? Animals saved? Global deluge? etc.

4) Do you believe in the creation account (either one or both) as described in Genesis?

If not, help us to understand why you are so eager to take the genocide stories at face value, but not these stories. Thanks in advance.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

OK, here we go:

1) Do you believe that the ancient Patriarchs lived 500+ years?

2) Do you believe that a prophet (or God) would cause a bear to kill a bunch of little kids for teasing said prophet about his bald spot?

3) Do you believe in Noah's ark? Animals saved? Global deluge? etc.

4) Do you believe in the creation account (either one or both) as described in Genesis?

If not, help us to understand why you are so eager to take the genocide stories at face value, but not these stories. Thanks in advance.

Based on his response to me, I expect he will answer yes to all of these, because neither a modern prophet nor modern scripture have said they're false. If that's not his position, then I truly have no idea what he's trying to say, above.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Based on his response to me, I expect he will answer yes to all of these, because neither a modern prophet nor modern scripture have said they're false. If that's not his position, then I truly have no idea what he's trying to say, above.

Neither do I.

Tex must be a local Arizona politician, given his propensity for obfuscation.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

If not, help us to understand why you are so eager to take the genocide stories at face value, but not these stories. Thanks in advance.

You are conflating two questions here: "How do you interpret these events?" and "Do you believe they are true?" I anticipate a third, "On what basis do you make these judgments?" to which, if I don't have some carefully annotated bibliography of prophetic statements, I will be accused of hypocrisy. Nicht wahr?

Despite the feeling that I'm being set up, I will answer your two questions. I hope you're asking out of real curiosity (as I did at the outset of this thread), and not out of a desire to lay a devious trap. If I sound a little defensive, it's a natural outgrowth of having your words continually twisted beyond recognition. (Arch: this means you.)

To the question, "do I believe these events are true?" the answer is universally yes. I don't discount or disregard any of these passages out of hand. (As an aside, I should note that Arch and SoCalCoug both successfully predicted this response, which belies your complaint that I am impossible to pin down.)

I'll answer the other question, "how do I interpret them?" below.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

OK, here we go:

1) Do you believe that the ancient Patriarchs lived 500+ years?

Frankly, I've never thought about it any other way. Is there some other interpretation that I'm not aware of? Otherwise, yes.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

2) Do you believe that a prophet (or God) would cause a bear to kill a bunch of little kids for teasing said prophet about his bald spot?

Is there not an interpretation of this scripture that suggests the children in the story were actually adults? Likewise, is there not an interpretation that suggests their mocking was not just of his bald head, but of his priesthood calling and authority?

Probably there is more to the story than we have here in this scripture. However, I have no reason to believe it didn't happen, our lack of understanding the details notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

3) Do you believe in Noah's ark? Animals saved? Global deluge? etc.

It's been a while since I've studied the flood, so I'm weak on remembering the exact language of how the Bible describes it. But as to the fundamentals of the story as I remember them, yes, I believe they happened as described. If some future revelation comes forward and indicates it was a localized phenomenon, it will not shake my faith.

The truth of the story was reinforced by Peter, and quoted by Joseph F. Smith in the D&C, so it's reasonable to assume they believed it happened as described as well.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

4) Do you believe in the creation account (either one or both) as described in Genesis?

Either one or both? Not sure what that means.

As I have already repeated a couple of times, my feelings on the creation story more or less mirror what Indy said. If you have further questions, stop beating around the bush, and ask them.

---

As an epilogue, permit me a personal observation about the nature of these questions. It strikes me that the hidden question being alluded to is, "Do you really believe in these outrageous events that defy common sense?" Maybe that's not how Leb meant it, but that is certainly the tone, especially given the ridicule I've taken over belief in other Biblical events (Amalekites, etc.).

It's an interesting line of questioning. It's not a big leap to jump from that to the miracles of Jesus. They're pretty outrageous and defy common sense, too. Maybe next on the list is, "Do you really believe Elijah caused the cruse of oil not to fail?" Or, "Do you really believe God would seal the heavens, causing so much hunger and pain to so many, including little children?" And further, "Isn't it more likely that some scribe added that later? or that it's some tradition of the Jews, but that it didn't happen that way?"

This is what happens when we take our own personal predilections and project them on to God. We whittle away at the scriptures until there's just a strangely shaped husk of partial doctrine in front of us: that doctrine which is palatable enough for our spiritual consumption. Maybe we should begin our own Mormon version of the Jesus Seminar, complete with colored beads. We'll even pray for the Spirit beforehand to guide us, and we can settle once and for all what is true and untrue in the Bible.

Thank God for prophets who carry this authority, so things like that don't happen in this church.

Again, if this isn't what Leb meant, then disregard. But it sure feels like it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

You are conflating two questions here: "How do you interpret these events?" and "Do you believe they are true?" I anticipate a third, "On what basis do you make these judgments?" to which, if I don't have some carefully annotated bibliography of prophetic statements, I will be accused of hypocrisy. Nicht wahr?

Despite the feeling that I'm being set up, I will answer your two questions. I hope you're asking out of real curiosity (as I did at the outset of this thread), and not out of a desire to lay a devious trap. If I sound a little defensive, it's a natural outgrowth of having your words continually twisted beyond recognition. (Arch: this means you.)

"set up"? "devious trap"? I love how you get all melodramatic when you realize you are getting your ass kicked in a debate. A desperate plea for sympathy. You painted yourself into this corner, Tex. Buck up and take it like a man.

Originally Posted by Tex

To the question, "do I believe these events are true?" the answer is universally yes. I don't discount or disregard any of these passages out of hand. (As an aside, I should note that Arch and SoCalCoug both successfully predicted this response, which belies your complaint that I am impossible to pin down.)

Bravo to you, Tex. You answered most of them with less equivocation than you normally demonstrate. But I guess to do otherwise at this point would have destroyed any remaining credibility you had.

Originally Posted by Tex

Frankly, I've never thought about it any other way. Is there some other interpretation that I'm not aware of? Otherwise, yes.

There are plenty of other interpretations.

Originally Posted by Tex

Is there not an interpretation of this scripture that suggests the children in the story were actually adults? Likewise, is there not an interpretation that suggests their mocking was not just of his bald head, but of his priesthood calling and authority?

Probably there is more to the story than we have here in this scripture. However, I have no reason to believe it didn't happen, our lack of understanding the details notwithstanding.

I am not aware of either alternate interpretations. But that is certainly not what it says in the scripture. Remember what you said about "face value"? If you are going to tell me that you believe them only after you change the critical facts of the story, then you are being a hypocrite.

But if you want to assume that they were adults and that they were mocking his authority, go ahead. Do you believe that is a legitimate reason to use priesthood power to commit murder? Come on, Tex.

Originally Posted by Tex

It's been a while since I've studied the flood, so I'm weak on remembering the exact language of how the Bible describes it. But as to the fundamentals of the story as I remember them, yes, I believe they happened as described. If some future revelation comes forward and indicates it was a localized phenomenon, it will not shake my faith.

The truth of the story was reinforced by Peter, and quoted by Joseph F. Smith in the D&C, so it's reasonable to assume they believed it happened as described as well.

"been a while since I've studied the flood"? One of your more creative equivocations. I am guessing you know the details. Global flood. All of the animals on the earth, etc.

Originally Posted by Tex

Either one or both? Not sure what that means.

There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Read it carefully and you will see it. But it's beside the point here.

Originally Posted by Tex

As I have already repeated a couple of times, my feelings on the creation story more or less mirror what Indy said. If you have further questions, stop beating around the bush, and ask them.

And no matter how many times I ask, the best you can do is to say "more or less what Indy said". And then you have the balls to accuse me of "beating around the Bush". That's amazing.

I am surprised that you would admit to taking everything else at face value but still hesitate to fully endorse the creation account. I suppose it's because you realize at that point that you are completely defying common sense and basic reason in doing so.

Originally Posted by Tex

As an epilogue, permit me a personal observation about the nature of these questions. It strikes me that the hidden question being alluded to is, "Do you really believe in these outrageous events that defy common sense?" Maybe that's not how Leb meant it, but that is certainly the tone, especially given the ridicule I've taken over belief in other Biblical events (Amalekites, etc.).

Yes, that's the point. There is nothing "hidden" about it. Stop being so melodramatic. It was an attempt to see if you would be consistent in the application of your scriptural ethic. If you say no to these questions, you are a hypocrite. If you say yes, then you are admitting to believing even the most absurd elements of the OT straight up, putting you beyond typical LDS beliefs and in the camp of biblical fundamentalists. You are certainly welcome to believe that, but it makes it awfully tough to take you seriously anymore. If you are willing to suspend logic to that extreme a level in order to maintain your dogma, then I don't think you have the basic intellectual honesty to engage in a meaningful debate.

Originally Posted by Tex

It's an interesting line of questioning. It's not a big leap to jump from that to the miracles of Jesus. They're pretty outrageous and defy common sense, too. Maybe next on the list is, "Do you really believe Elijah caused the cruse of oil not to fail?" Or, "Do you really believe God would seal the heavens, causing so much hunger and pain to so many, including little children?" And further, "Isn't it more likely that some scribe added that later? or that it's some tradition of the Jews, but that it didn't happen that way?"

Classic Tex binary thinking. That all-or-nothing mentality is just nonsense.

Originally Posted by Tex

This is what happens when we take our own personal predilections and project them on to God. We whittle away at the scriptures until there's just a strangely shaped husk of partial doctrine in front of us: that doctrine which is palatable enough for our spiritual consumption. Maybe we should begin our own Mormon version of the Jesus Seminar, complete with colored beads. We'll even pray for the Spirit beforehand to guide us, and we can settle once and for all what is true and untrue in the Bible.

Classic Texperbole.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

"set up"? "devious trap"? I love how you get all melodramatic when you realize you are getting your ass kicked in a debate. A desperate plea for sympathy. You painted yourself into this corner, Tex. Buck up and take it like a man.

You libs are so cute. Always beating your chest and claiming victory.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Bravo to you, Tex. You answered most of them with less equivocation than you normally demonstrate. But I guess to do otherwise at this point would have destroyed any remaining credibility you had.

That you expected any different just illustrates you haven't been paying attention.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am not aware of either alternate interpretations. But that is certainly not what it says in the scripture. Remember what you said about "face value"? If you are going to tell me that you believe them only after you change the critical facts of the story, then you are being a hypocrite.

What I meant by "face value" is that I take them to be true, not that I interpret them literally or strictly. You continue to conflate the two.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But if you want to assume that they were adults and that they were mocking his authority, go ahead. Do you believe that is a legitimate reason to use priesthood power to commit murder? Come on, Tex.

As I said, there's probably more to the story than what we have, since it seems unusual for a prophet to do such. But then again, it seems unusual for Uzzah to get killed for steadying the Ark, too. I don't rule out scriptures just because I can't reconcile them with my personal tastes.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

"been a while since I've studied the flood"? One of your more creative equivocations. I am guessing you know the details. Global flood. All of the animals on the earth, etc.

I answered your question. Quit whining.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Read it carefully and you will see it. But it's beside the point here.

And no matter how many times I ask, the best you can do is to say "more or less what Indy said". And then you have the balls to accuse me of "beating around the Bush". That's amazing.

I am surprised that you would admit to taking everything else at face value but still hesitate to fully endorse the creation account. I suppose it's because you realize at that point that you are completely defying common sense and basic reason in doing so.

Re: "Face value" see previous comment.

Re: "what Indy said" ... THAT is the answer. You want me to cut-and-paste it here? You want a doctoral dissertation?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes, that's the point. There is nothing "hidden" about it. Stop being so melodramatic. It was an attempt to see if you would be consistent in the application of your scriptural ethic. If you say no to these questions, you are a hypocrite. If you say yes, then you are admitting to believing even the most absurd elements of the OT straight up, putting you beyond typical LDS beliefs and in the camp of biblical fundamentalists. You are certainly welcome to believe that, but it makes it awfully tough to take you seriously anymore. If you are willing to suspend logic to that extreme a level in order to maintain your dogma, then I don't think you have the basic intellectual honesty to engage in a meaningful debate.

So my honest answers illustrate my intellectual dishonesty. Heh. Amusing.

There is nothing I've espoused on this board to date that puts me "beyond typical LDS beliefs." I'm not the one tossing out scriptures left and right, and mocking or denigrating church leaders past and present.

The only thing I'm beyond is the borderline apostate thinking of Cougarguard.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Classic Tex binary thinking. That all-or-nothing mentality is just nonsense.

Classic Texperbole.

In your words: "Copout."