Yeah, it's werid when i was TBM i always loved the NT much more than the BofM people harped on about I was natually drawn to the musing and stories of Jesus (or whoever), but I was always horrified at the concept that he was suppsoed the horrible God of teh Old testiment, what a bi-polar God (not to mention unproveble major events):o| for me what tripped it up was the old testiment i couldn't accept the nonsense in that. for me, everything fell over at the same time for me.
Sorry so in answer to your observation - other than a brief transition period I do find it odd people don't apply the same logic (critical thinking skill) to the bible.
Christ was not the God of the OT though Mormon doctrine says he is. Indeed, if the father had ever been a human being, he should never have been elevated to godhood because he did not understand man. Christ did understand because he did have a body and feelings and is our advocate with the father. His agony in the Garden of Gethsemene was not the gruesome one portrayed by moism with bleeding, but an agony because he did not really wish to die and leave his friends. Three times he pled with the father to take the burden from him! This was god as man, not the almighty lacking in mercy, but a man (though also God). This is what changes the OT to the NT.
One can also note that as one reads the time of the OT, through the apocrypha and through the NT one sees an evolution of God. Though this has some essence of contradicting the image of God as unchanging, it explains both God and man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 05:29PM by rhgc.
Oh oh, rhgc the evolution of God? WOW!! You mean God is not almighty? God is learning by doing? At least it would explain a lot. For example only one tiny Problem of a almighty God - creating Satan and be surprised how it turned out Edit: Or putting Satan in his Zoo and being surprised how that turns out.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 05:34PM by buddyjoe.
Thanks for the observation. Why can't God change? After all, except for the JS fake translation, the Bible says Got rued his destruction in the flood. Also, in Jonah, God changed his mind about Nineveh when the people unexpectedly repented. God also showed his agreement to change his mind about Sodom if as few as 10 righteous men were there.
One more observation: if God cannot change, what good is having an advocate to argue for us in judgment (Christ)?
If God's determination is unchanging, what is the use of prayer? As for my belief, God listens and considers what we think, though he usually knows better than we do what is the right thing to do, to interfere with the natural course of events or not.
God changed his mind with Moses when he want to destroy everybody because they build a golden fetish and Moses plead everybody out. But Moses had become the rule “You shall not kill” and Moses went down hill and slaughtered 3000 of his opposition. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image Or God told Moses to build a metal Snake so everyone get healed after a snake bite when touched the metall and later a dude had to come and make what is right in the eye of God, throw down the snake and the heights and the monuments that Moses had made.
Well, well – God the unchangable.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 05:49PM by buddyjoe.
I think most ex-mormons do question the bible, which is why there are so many agnostic and athiest folks here.
I think you see believers in other christian faiths less willing to discredit the bible because they don't need to. They are mostly free to do whatever they want and participate at whatever level of intensity they want...
For example, if being a Methodist doesn't 'work' for you, you just stop going; no need to deconstruct your beliefs about the bible. But you can't just walk away from mormonism... the cost of leaving is so high (divorce, broken friendships, loss of community, etc.) that you need to be damn sure that the problem really is mormonism and not "I didn't pray enough".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 05:35PM by AKA Alma.
The OT is clearly bronze age mythology and nomadic tribal myths from multiple sources, poorly knitted together. It was finding these obvious myths reaffirmed as inspired modern scripture in the Books of Abraham, Moses, and Mormon that confirmed Mormonism was a fraud for me.
Eventually the question comes up, especially once a thorough survey of scientific and archeological knowledge concerning the BofM is complete.
When all the evidentiary cards are on the table concerning the BofM it is natural to sooner or later apply the same tests and inquiries to the bible.
As Spanner suggests, the results of this analysis are also not very good and fairing worse every day. Though there are certainly many more "real" references in the bible (actual persons, places, etc) the evidence is pretty clear that the bible is mythology and folklore (mingled with scripture).
I like Rich Packham's analogy of claiming the book "Gone With The Wind" is true.
Imagine using mormon or christian literalist apologist methods to defend it as a "true record". Certainly there was a Civil War. Atlanta was a real city. There are many examples of named people with names like Rhett and Scarlett. There were plantation houses and rifles and wagons and furniture. Ect, etc. None of these facts prove it is a true story.
I did not say that the Bible is wrong. The problems with the Bible, and its contradictions in OT and NT and between the two books completely, is a well known fact. It always comes down to choose to believe or not to. I only ask why Mormons are more willing to question the BoM but when it comes to the bible they hesitate much more. People tend to believing something when a widely population or a certain group my be intellectuals (who don’t want to be seen as smart) believes regardless of evidence or even evidence and proof against it. I’ll think Mormonism takes widely advantage of this behavior.
Buddyjoe, that IS an interesting obsvervation, because the BOM is emphasized as being the direct revelation of God along with the other Mormon scriptures, whereas wherever the Bible disagrees with Moism, it is considered to be mistransalated. That does beg the question why do new exmos hang on to the Bible more tightly. For me, I just feel like there is just more collaborating evidence in the world at large. The evidence of real places, people, events; the continued existence of the jewish people and why they didn't go the way of the hittites; the hatred that was predicted against Israel and how it is playing out now; the very astute obversations of human nature and prediction of societal trends and reactions, just to name a few.
Hmmmm, do you really think that mention of places and the existence of a certain nation in the presence is evidence that 6000 Years ago things happen like we read it?
The bible describes somewhat, somehow only and exclusively the Jews and absolutely nothing else. And those Jews do not exist anymore. The state of Israel has as much in common with the Jews in the Tanakh than Canada is a Jewish State. May in Canada live some Jews so do in Israel. The Jews from the Old Testament where completely different people.
The Bible tells us from this ancient Jews, about their laws and their society. Read the OT and you see that the society and the faith was no different to today’s shortcoming of our society and religion.
It is the very one sided view of one tribe of many at there time. And there were plenty of tribes nations and not only in this very small strip around north Africa and middle east.
I just wondered that Mormons jump with logical arguments on the BoM but as soon it comes to the other books like Koran, Bible Vede they starting to believe again the same way they believed before in the BoM.