Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_The CCC]

It is no problem for me. But it does appear from your posts that it is for you. IE; If you want to know something about me, whom better to ask than me?

[_Fence Sitter]

It is no problem for me. But it does appear from your posts that it is for you. IE; If you want to know something about me, whom better to ask than me?

Pointing out a problem with something is not the same as having that problem.

And it seems you have already provided your solution to the problem, which is to repeat a process that causes the problem.

[_Maksutov]

It is no problem for me. But it does appear from your posts that it is for you. IE; If you want to know something about me, whom better to ask than me?

Because you aren't always the best source of information? Through subjectivity, bias, ignorance, and even malice?

If I want to know about your taxes, I'll ask your accountant. If I want to know about your heart condition, I'll ask your cardiologist.

If you are a con man, I will ask the local police. If you are psychotic, I will ask your psychiatrist.

There are all kinds of reasons why the information you present on yourself is unreliable to others. Think about it. How far would it get in a criminal court? In fact, where is it often given credence other than the "spiritual" realm?

[_The CCC]

In criminal courts it is the individual jury members that decide the facts of the case. All that the prosecutors, and related personnel can do is provide evidence for their claims. In religion it is always just a jury of one.

[_spotlight]

In criminal courts it is the individual jury members that decide the facts of the case. All that the prosecutors, and related personnel can do is provide evidence for their claims. In religion it is always just a jury of one.

If you were accused of a crime would you prefer the verdict of a jury of 12 over the verdict of a "jury" of one?

[_Dr Exiled]

It is no problem for me. But it does appear from your posts that it is for you. IE; If you want to know something about me, whom better to ask than me?

I would want to ask you questions about yourself and others who observe you. However, this doesn't compare to asking an invisible, imaginary being whether or not something that looks fraudulent is nevertheless true. You are here and alive and we can ask you and the other witnesses questions and get answers and EVERYONE can observe the same thing at once. God hides for some reason and we are left trusting dubious witnesses like Joseph Smith as to whether or not he even exists.

[_The CCC]

If you were accused of a crime would you prefer the verdict of a jury of 12 over the verdict of a "jury" of one?

Actually if accused of a crime you're statistically better off with just the Judge. Juries have a conviction rate of some 85% and Judge only of about 50%.

[_spotlight]

Actually if accused of a crime you're statistically better off with just the Judge. Juries have a conviction rate of some 85% and Judge only of about 50%.

Well a judge is not a typical juror and he has some education for his job. How again is it that we are trained to recognize a communication as coming from a god rather than our own subconscious mind? And why didn't the early Saints recognize that Joseph was pulling a fast one with the Book of Abraham? Oh that's right, sorry.

[_ClarkGoble]

The LDS consider the Scriptures to be inspired by God, but written by fallible mortal men.

With a net result that any conflicts with science can be explained away and the religion remains unfalsifiable?

I don't think that follows. But of course elements of the religion might be wrong without the religion as a whole being wrong. This is one of those cases where one has to be clear what one means by wrong. By way of analogy the fact many scientific theories are eventually falsified doesn't say much about science as a whole. So I think there's a bit of a category error going on here.

[_Physics Guy]

The problem is that the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been delivered miraculously, less than two centuries ago. Back when all kinds of Christians supposed the Pentateuch to have been dictated to Moses by God, this kind of miraculous scripture delivery was just par for the course.

A lot has happened to Biblical criticism since the 1830's, though. Many mainstream Christians have twigged to the fact that the Bible's journey through history has been long, and things happened en route. And Mormon apologists can easily take the same point of view about the writings of Nephi as redacted by others. But then there are the parallel and mutually irrelevant miracles of preserving those writings on golden plates conferred by an angel, and Joseph Smith dictating words that he read on a stone in his hat.

Liberal Christians like me can now readily admit that our scriptures are fallible in detail, but it's really hard to understand why God would use a miraculous channel to deliver a fallible Book of Mormon, without even bothering to add a preface that would have greatly enlightened the believers of Joseph Smith's day, by explaining that these miraculously revealed ancient writings were full of natural mistakes and confusions.

It seems to me you can't have it both ways. Either scriptures come down through history by natural means, and have to be read as such, or else they're dictated by God. I'm not really arguing that the two models are logically incompatible in a strict way, but they just seem to represent incompatible world views. A world in which angels convey golden plates is not a world in which the Word of God can be garbled by editors. A world in which God lets revelation come through ancient myths is not a world in which God sends golden plates.