I'll admit that I don't know what you're talking about here, so you can help me understand by explaining.

Are you saying that all of the historical parts of the Book of Mormon were meant to be taken as allegory, not historiography? That all of them would admit that the boatloads of Jews never crossed the ocean, there was no such civilization in the Americas, and that Jesus didn't visit here? It's all just allegory? Is that what you mean?

Are you saying that what looks like historiography in the Book of Mormon is really advice on how to live life?

"Type of literature": Are you saying the Book of Mormon is actually like a fable (a fictional story with a worthy moral)?

And on the bases of those understandings we can still perceive the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired (the golden tablets, the special glasses, the book of fables to lead us to a moral life that will result in our eternal salvation)?

Just help me understand.

I always assumed that it was obvious those parts of the narrative were meant to be taken as allegory—advice on how to live life. The key is understanding what type of literature the book is. The key fact is whether or not the text was divinely inspired, which we actually have very good evidence for.

My claim is that the tests for truth are multiple and varied, and there must be both consistency and corroboration in a multiplicity of areas for truth to be confirmed. If we that something is true in education but not in science, we have a problem. If something is true, then it's got to be true no matter what the discipline. Truth is the whole package. There's no such thing as something that is true in the Mormon tradition but not true anywhere else. That's both absurd and impossible.

It's not that some of the facts about history and the world are wrong in the Book of Mormon: ALL of them are. There is absolutely no evidence for anything the book says. A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G. And since the book records nothing factual, we have every reason to doubt that whatever vision Smith had was a source or conveyor of truth. Truth has a distinct and personal relationship to what exists in reality. It includes both macro-concepts and micro-details. Truth includes coherence and objectivity. Mormonism fails at so many points we can consider it false.

> Smith's alleged encounter with the angel, and the revelation about the alleged history of the Latter Day Saints in the Americas doesn't pass the tests for truth. There is absolutely no evidence for the presence of advanced Jewish cultures, great cities, or any of those people or events here in the Western hemisphere. The lack of any archaeological or historical corroborative evidence is a substantive argument against the historicity of Smith's encounter with Moroni.

Speaking strictly with Smith's encounter with Moroni and his acquisition of the seer stones, your position is that because some of the facts about the world are wrong in the Book of Mormon, we should not believe this claim either?

> Should we approach Christianity the same way we view all other religions and cults when attempting look for validity?

Yes. Christianity doesn't get a free pass, just as no religion should get a free pass. Truth has to be evaluated on principles of logic and on the evidence available, and Christianity is no different. And religions are no different from anything else. Religions need to be evaluated on criteria of logic, evidence, and sense.

> What is your best argument against historicity of Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel moroni?

Smith's alleged encounter with the angel, and the revelation about the alleged history of the Latter Day Saints in the Americas doesn't pass the tests for truth. There is absolutely no evidence for the presence of advanced Jewish cultures, great cities, or any of those people or events here in the Western hemisphere. The lack of any archaeological or historical corroborative evidence is a substantive argument against the historicity of Smith's encounter with Moroni.

> Do you believe Area 51 contains a secret alien research site? Why or why not?

I have great reservations. It's like this huge conspiracy theory kind of thing by people who just want to believe and who use circumstances and pieces of evidence to create a case. Back in the late 1960s-early 1970s, people were able to use evidence to create a huge and sort-of convincing case that Paul McCartney was dead. It was actually quite a big deal at the time, but, of course, turned out to be a total farce, despite all of the "evidence".

We have to be careful how we process evidence and use logic. I don't really believe in UFOs. The universe is too big, travel across that kind of distance is too prohibitory, and even the possibility of communication across those distances is negligible. It's more likely that if we find life elsewhere in the solar system/universe it will be microbial, not advanced. If another civilization were advanced enough to find us, get to us, and still be able to communicate with their home planet, they would likely have made themselves known. As Stephen Hawking said, even though the prospect of finding life elsewhere in the universe is exciting, we should probably be more afraid than anything else.

So saying, there is likely life elsewhere in the universe, but the odds of it being advanced are too slim to measure, and the odds of them actually coming to us is so minuscule we could logically consider it to be impossible.

While Area 51 could contain a secret alien research site, I doubt they have anything to research there except radio waves, sounds from space, and other such phenomena. The logic and evidence weigh against extraterrestrial life visiting us.

I have a few questions for you:

1. Should we approach Christianity the same way we view all other religions and cults when attempting look for validity?
2. What is your best argument against historicity of Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel moroni?
3. Do you believe Area 51 contains a secret alien research site? Why or why not?

> But one cannot say that Jesus was pro-Jewish societal norms -- otherwise he would have had no business reforming anything.

I'm not aware that Jesus expressed any issue with societal norms. Jesus addressed their religious norms. Just about everything He said pertained to the hypocrisy and misguidedness of their religious perspectives, which Jesus considered to be askew from God's intent. He rarely, if ever, addressed ANY of the social issues of the day. He didn't talk about slavery, homosexuality, infanticide (the Roman Empire's version of abortion), or education, and only spoke very briefly about marriage and divorce when asked. Jesus's beef was with the religious establishment.

In addition, Jesus was notably conformant to many practices of Jewish piety of His day: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. He presupposed the validity of the Temple, the sacrifices, and Israel's holy days. He read and quoted the Scriptures and regarded them as authoritative. He attended synagogue services. And He accepted the authority of the Torah. It could be completely out of character, given all those things we KNOW, to perceive Jesus as anti-family and against Jewish social norms.

> Paul is pretty clear about the unimportance of starting a family,

We don't know too much about Paul's stance on starting a family. In 1 Corinthians 7 he is not writing a theology of marriage and family, but answering a specific question for a particular group (a very troubled group with many misunderstandings and distortions). It's very difficult, if not impossible, to take what Paul says to them as having any kind of
universal application, or to take this as a good rendition of Paul's perspective on things.

The ancient world generally took one of three positions pertaining to marriage and procreation: (1) Marriage and procreation are vital and necessary for all who are physically capable of it (the majority view). (2) Marriage is a distraction and should never be undertaken by the wise man except in the rare instances where one might find a spouse equally devoted to the philosophic lifestyle (the Cynic position). (3) Marriage is good for most people, but one must make exceptions for those too committed to other spiritual pursuits to take time for it (an early-2nd-century rabbi).

Paul combines elements of the second and third views without subscribing to either. He was not against marriage or children. What he was FOR is total dedication to God.

> The issue is whether or not we can trust any of the ancient claims we have about the man, and I don't think we can.

This is where we differ. With four different accounts from 4 different writers, two from the band of disciples, one Jew who was not one of the 12, and one Gentile, we have an abundance of material about Jesus. Despite being on the periphery of the Roman Empire in backwater Palestine, we have as many sources of Jesus as we have about Emperor Tiberius.

There's no credible reason to doubt the accuracy of the Gospels. They are full of material that agrees with other extrabibilcal sources. Their information agrees with the archaeological, geographical, and cultural knowledge we have from other sources. Their literary styles match other contemporaneous histories and biographies of the ancient world (Josephus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius). The authors were in a position to report accurate historical information (even if you disagree that they were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), since all 4 were written in the 1st century. We have every reason to trust the Gospel accounts.

> Can you expand on that? As a secularist who tries to deal in probabilities, this feels like a way to say 'my contextual reading, while not agreed on by all scholars, is based on true wisdom and therefore I am justified in my interpretation.' And what I see from the outside is yet another interpretation to pile on the heap.

We have to utilize research, every tool of analysis we have, and also use a whole lot of common sense. There are so many factors that play into accurate interpretation, and it's easy for bias to skew one's work. People who work merely to discredit the text or to justify it a priori don't do the rest of us any favors, though the Internet is full of such work. So often (far too often), I'm having these conversations, and people just link me to "X" Internet sites, as if that ends the discussion. Or they find a battery of scholars who agree with them, and, well, that says it all! It doesn't.

We have to use our heads. Our conversation here is a good example. Jesus was a fastidious Jew, conforming to their societal norms, affirming the Torah and living by it, very much a part of their culture, and yet He gets accused of being anti-family by the original poster. But such a perspective is WAY off to the side of (1) anybody who has done considerable reading and research in the life of Jesus, and (2) anybody who doesn't have an axe to grind.

I once was hosting a Russian tourist in America for the first time. She was simply astounded that our homes and places of business didn't have bars in all the windows, high walls, barbed wire, and strong gates around every building, as they do in Russia (and in many countries). The clearest and simplest explanation was, "We're Americans. We're not that kind of people." I've never had bars on my windows in my many different homes, nor have I ever had a break-in. Except in rare circumstances or the bad parts of the cities, we don't have to protect against that, because it rarely happens. In most places in America most of the time, a locked door is sufficient.

When you are familiar with the life of Jesus, the accusation that He was a family-hater and anti-Jewish social norms just doesn't wash. He wasn't "that kind of people." Years of reading and research, along with a measure of wisdom, gives the clear and easy answer to the question.

To be clear: I am not arguing that Jesus is anti-family. But one cannot say that Jesus was pro-Jewish societal norms -- otherwise he would have had no business reforming anything. Paul is pretty clear about the unimportance of starting a family, and he is our best window into the early Christian cult teachings. I don't take any of the red letter in the gospel as, well, the gospel truth, just so you know where I'm starting from, but Jesus being anti-family is completely and utterly beside the point for me. The issue is whether or not we can trust any of the ancient claims we have about the man, and I don't think we can.

> So we don't necessarily go with "the majority of modern scholars," but rather with true wisdom about such things.

Can you expand on that? As a secularist who tries to deal in probabilities, this feels like a way to say 'my contextual reading, while not agreed on by all scholars, is based on true wisdom and therefore I am justified in my interpretation.' And what I see from the outside is yet another interpretation to pile on the heap.

> I beg your pardon. There's no need to get sassy.

Wasn't being sassy, but responding to your comment of "You don't really know the context." Since you don't know me, or know what I know, this was quite the prejudicial accusation.

> It's difficult to hear someone discount scholarship the way you do. The scholarly process builds on decades of research... lifetimes of research... maybe you could tell me which scholars you've read, and why you disagree with some of their positions.

I know from firsthand experience the bias of many scholars. I find there are many secular scholars trying to discredit the text, and their bias is somewhat obvious. I find also many "fundamentalist" scholars with just as much bias in the other direction. I do think, however, there are a vast number of scholars at various places on the continuum in the middle, trying to approach the text honestly and fairly. To just press a point with "the majority of modern scholars..." is not nearly as legitimate in biblical studies as it is in other academic disciplines. The "decades of research" and "lifetimes of research" too often comes with prejudicial bias and baggage. We must be very careful, and we have to be judicious scholars.

I know that biblical studies is an active discipline, based on millennia of analysis. In the late 19th century, however, biblical studies took a radical turn toward alleged Bible scholars working hard to discredit the biblical text. In the early 20th century, the distinct academic trend became a wide effort to disparage the text. "The Jesus Seminar" illustrates the farce of secular biblical studies, taking votes among a group of biblical minimalists to decide which passages were legitimate and which were specious. Lately, thanks to the work of many honest biblical scholars, those kinds of farcical efforts are being undone, but the literature is still full of them, and hence the "majority of modern scholars" fallacy.

> No. That's not what he says. Ranking has nothing to do with it. He says you must completely disavow your family - there's no caveat. There's no relativism in the speech. None. A person who does not hate his family, such a person cannot be his disciple. He doesn't say that someone who loves their family more... more has nothing to do with it. I beg you to read it again.

The viewpoint that Jesus was anti-family doesn't hold up. First, Jewish society was rigorously pro-family, and there's no credible evidence to see Jesus as standing apart from that. Secondly, Jesus affirmed the value of family relationships enough times in His ministry to show us His view on that matter. Third, Jesus was prone to radical and hyperbolic statements when He was talking about the kingdom of God that we can easily interpret His statements as pushing people to a radical view of the place of God in their lives. And since these statements that have been references were all in contexts of teaching about the costs of discipleship, it is more likely Jesus meant them as statements of essential and profound discipleship than as anti-family declarations.

> All you can do is ask yourself why? what does it mean - modern scholarship explains this (fairly well, imo) by putting it in the context of 2nd temple apocalyptic.

Except that 2nd-temple apocalyptic was not the prevailing worldview of the era. While there were a number of Jewish (and a few Christian) apocalypses, the tenor of the NT writings are Gospel (theological biography) and epistle, with only slight and sparse apocalyptic references. The bulk of the NT material is couched in biography and theology, not apocalyptic expectation (and therefore interpretation).

> It's difficult to try to explain Paul by citing a text that many (probably most) scholars regard as pseudonymous. Ephesians was not likely written by Paul.

The evidence for Pauline authorship of Ephesians is fairly substantive.

* Many of the early church fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Hermas, and Polycarp) support Paul’s authorship. The external evidence is very early in Paul’s favor. By the close of the second century the Epistle was universally received as St. Paul’s. The external evidence is unanimous.
* His name is mentioned twice alone with some people whom Paul knew.
* The thinking and theology is wholly Pauline.
* If Paul didn’t write it, a *hypothesis of the great unknown* is required. If it was not Paul, the author “out-Pauls” Paul, showing more genius than Paul himself. If that is so, why didn’t he put his own name on it?

Now, I'm aware that there's a case against Pauline authorship as well.

* Lack of personal greetings, awkward for a man who spent 3 years there and who is prone to personal greetings in his other letters.
* It is said that it has a different vocabulary and sentence structure than are typical for Paul. (But vocabulary is not always a definite indicator of authorship.)
* It is said that the doctrine goes beyond Paul's era and thinking. (Eh, that's fairly subjective.)
* Ephesians is lacking key Pauline terms, such as "justification," "righteousness of God," any mention of Abraham, and the Law. (But given his audience and purpose in writing, these are inconclusive regarding authorship.)

I think a strong case can be made for Pauline authorship, and it's impossible for you take a settled conclusion of "Ephesians was not likely written by Paul." I think the case is stronger for Pauline authorship than against.

> 1Cor is answering specific questions from the Corinthian body concerning whether or not they should get married. Paul says that they shouldn't. Remain as you are. It's quite simple - there's not enough time.

We know the general theme of their question: "It is good for a man not to marry" (1 Cor. 7.1). I find it interesting that where Paul goes immediately is not to eschatology but instead to morality (1 Cor. 7.2). If he were going to ply eschatological waters, I would expect him to follow with something like, "Jesus is coming back in a few years. Cool your jets." Instead he launches his talk into sexual morality, marital faithfulness, dealing with long-term temptations, and marital continuity and obligations over the long haul.

He counsels widows to stay unmarried (7.8), but with no reference to Jesus's return. But since a long-term is in view, marriage is better than immorality (7.9). He counsels couples to stay together (7.10), discusses divorce (7.11-15).

Why would he encourage a slave to gain his freedom if at all possible (7.21) if he had only a short view of eschatology?

As a matter of fact, there is nothing at all in the chapter that would lead us to believe that Paul is speaking only from the viewpoint of 2nd-Temple apocalyptic. It's more likely that you have superimposed that perspective on the text, because it's not explicit.

1 Cor. 7.29: "What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short."

I guess my question for you would be: Why do you see eschatology as the overriding theme rather than morality? To me the vast majority of the chapter is Paul's talk about Christianity ethics (consistent with almost all the rest of Corinthians) over and above talk about eschatology (an only occasional theme in the book).

> I could cite a lot of passages (including in 2 peter) that point to immanent eschatological expectation. I could also walk you through the historical contexts in Daniel and Revelation. But actually, it may be better if you read scholars' own words. I can recommend a few if you're interested.

I'm aware of the passages. There are also balancing passages that show they realized Jesus wasn't returning soon. I'm also aware of the historical contexts of Daniel and Revelation, both highly debated books with regard to to authorship, time of writing, and interpretation.

> you don't know which words are Jesus' and which words are those of later authors

An examination of the Gospel writings gives little reason to question the authenticity of ascribing almost all of the words to Jesus. We'd have to go text by text rather than speaking in generalities, but there is little evidence or basis upon which to doubt the legitimacy of the references to Christ's own mouth.

> Easy, Tiger. Stand down.

I beg your pardon. There's no need to get sassy.

> Each of the Gospel writers arranged the material to suit their thesis in writing.

No doubt.

> They don't want to be bothered with the facts

It's difficult to hear someone discount scholarship the way you do. The scholarly process builds on decades of research... lifetimes of research... maybe you could tell me which scholars you've read, and why you disagree with some of their positions.

> Jesus doesn't teach the separation of family, but instead only the ranking of the relationship with God as taking precedence over family kinship ties.

No. That's not what he says. Ranking has nothing to do with it. He says you must completely disavow your family - there's no caveat. There's no relativism in the speech. None. A person who does not hate his family, such a person cannot be his disciple. He doesn't say that someone who loves their family more... more has nothing to do with it. I beg you to read it again.

All you can do is ask yourself why? what does it mean - modern scholarship explains this (fairly well, imo) by putting it in the context of 2nd temple apocalyptic.

> First of all, if we want to all of Paul's views of marriage, we have to look at all of his views, not just one. Eph. 5.22-31

It's difficult to try to explain Paul by citing a text that many (probably most) scholars regard as pseudonymous. Ephesians was not likely written by Paul.

> He is answering specific questions, the exact content of which we are not informed.

1Cor is answering specific questions from the Corinthian body concerning whether or not they should get married. Paul says that they shouldn't. Remain as you are. It's quite simple - there's not enough time.

> Paul and Gospel writers understood that Christ's return was not imminent.

I could cite a lot of passages (including in 2 peter) that point to immanent eschatological expectation. I could also walk you through the historical contexts in Daniel and Revelation. But actually, it may be better if you read scholars' own words. I can recommend a few if you're interested.

> Jesus's words.

I'm sorry, but again, that's part of the problem - you don't know which words are Jesus' and which words are those of later authors. It's a difficult concept, but it's true.