Page 1 of 1

Impressive Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:41 am
by Sargon
For those who believe in the Book of Mormon, that belief is based on a personal witness from the Holy Spirit. We do not need physical evidence to beleive in it. We have spiritual evidence. However, because the world we live in demands physical evidence, our natures incline us to search for it. The Book of Mormon has an overwhelming amount of non-spiritual evidence for it's case. Hopefully I can address a few that I find most interesting.
One thing to keep in mind is the possibility of Joseph Smith purposefully including these evidences in the Book of Mormon text. For the majority of these items, it seems extremely unlikely that he could have known about them. It has been been demonstrated that when Joseph believed he had discovered evidence for his case, he was not slow to proclaim it. Most of these evidences were not detected until over a hundred years after the publication of the book, and were never boasted of by a knowing Joseph Smith.

Daniel C. Peterson has identified a perfect example within the Book of Mormon of textbook guerilla warfare. It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith would have been able to produce such a scene. The bolded headings were inserted by me.
Introduction
There is more that can be said. One area that I have worked on is the Gadianton robbers. They are some of my very favorite people in the Book of Mormon, a cheery lot, who did a great deal for Nephite and Lamanite history. One of my disreputable hobbies that I had as a teenager in high school, is that I was very interested in guerilla warfare. I don't know why. But I began reading a great deal about it. The foremost theorist of guerilla warfare in the twentieth century, which is the only time anyone has actually written about the theory of guerilla warfare, have been Marxists: Mao Tse-tung in China, Vao Neuin Giap in North Vietnam, Che Guevara in Cuba, who is associated with Castro. I certainly don't endorse their political views, but on guerilla warfare they were authorities, because they'd practiced it successfully and they wrote about it. And so, I spent a fair amount of time reading their books about guerilla warfare theory, for no particular purpose. Years later it clicked for me, though. I was teaching a Gospel Doctrine class in the Jerusalem branch in Israel, and we were reading Helaman and 3 Nephi. Suddenly, I realized that what I was seeing there in the Gadianton robbers was a textbook instance of both success and failure according to the rules that Giap, and Guevara, and Mao Tse-tung had outlined.

Guerilla Warfare in the Book of Mormon
And let me just tell you something about those rules. Particularly if you look at the end of Helaman and the beginning of 3 Nephi, you see very clearly, the very kinds of things that the theorists were talking about. When the Gadianton robbers start off, they start off as an urban terrorist group really, involved in assassinations. But they eventually have to flee into the mountains and this is typical of guerilla groups in our own century. And they'll talk at length about how the best places to work are in cities, where you can hide among the urban masses. Or if that doesn't work—as it didn't work for the Gadianton robbers—they then flee into inaccessible territory, almost always mountains. It was, in all three cases (in China, Vietnam and in Cuba), the mountains into which the guerillas fled. Then they make lightning raids out of the mountains to attack settled civilizations. But they choose only those times when they can win. They can make a lightning strike, do some damage, then get away. This, of course, irritates the authorities to no end. And the authorities then will send troops into the mountains after the guerillas, but the mountains are the guerilla's native territory. The guerilla then chooses the place to fight from. He ambushes the regular troops that come after him. He causes them immense casualties.

In the Book of Mormon you read that the commanders come back and report overwhelming numbers of Gadianton robbers. Well, this is probably not true; the very reason they were hiding in the mountains is that they didn't have overwhelming numbers. But they wanted it to seem like overwhelming numbers, a little bit the way some of our own LDS ancestors behaved during the Utah war when they were trying to slow down the advance of the federal columns. They hid out in the mountains and masqueraded as having many more people than they had, in order to give the federal troops something to think about. This is a time-honored practice.

Now, fortunately, the Latter-day Saints weren't actually shooting anybody; they were just trying to slow things down for negotiations. The Gadiantons were not quite so nice. They caused great casualties to the Nephite troops. Eventually the point comes when a guerilla army needs to start to hold territory though, and this is the really sensitive time in any guerilla war. Mao Tse-tung called it regularization, turning a guerilla army into a regular army, one that holds territory. Guerillas don't hold territory—they'll strike and then flee. The object is not to have any casualties or to keep them to a minimum. They want to harass and demoralize, but not to hold territory yet. When they feel themselves strong enough, then they decide to occupy cities, to occupy territory, and hold it. But that, of course, exposes them to direct attack. It means that they can't retreat and withdraw; they can't maneuver quite as freely. Here's a problem now identified as "premature regularization," which is when a commander too soon thinks that he's ready to stand up to a regular army. He makes the transition too soon. This can be disastrous, and it was in the case of the Gadianton robbers.

At a certain point (you read this in the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 4), the Gadianton robbers come down out of the mountains; they issue an ultimatum to the leaders of the Nephites and tell them to surrender, but the Nephites don't surrender. What they do, under the leadership of a governor named Lachoneus, is withdraw into their cities. They declare a kind of "scorched earth" policy. They destroy or carry away all of the food down in the agricultural areas and they take it and hole up in their fortified cities.

This actually reverses the situation, which is what guerillas should not allow themselves to be trapped into. What happens now is that the Nephites are in their strongholds. It's the guerillas, the Gadianton robbers in this case, who are out exposed on the plain, and they can't find any food, because none has been left and the crops have been destroyed. So they are forced, at times that are not suitable to them, to attack the Nephites to try to get food, or they are forced to disperse themselves to look for game. But every time they disperse or scatter themselves, the Nephites make lightning raids out of the fortress, out of the city, and attack them. The Nephites now choose the time of attack. What they've done is reversed the situation so the Nephites become, in effect, the guerillas, and the Gadianton robbers are trying to hold territory. It's a disaster for the Gadianton robbers, and they lose.

And this all behaves (I've tried to show this in some detail in a published article) as a text book illustration. You could not pick a better illustration of the virtues, if you will, and the problems of a guerilla army—the mistakes they can make and the successes they can have.

Conclusion- Joseph Smith?
All this written by a young man, supposedly, as critics would say, who knew nothing about guerilla warfare and whose idea of military activity was, at least later on in his life, to get on his black horse Charley and parade in a nice uniform, romanticizing the wars of American history: the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812. This would have been typical of his period. I think many people had these same attitudes. What's striking about the Book of Mormon is how utterly absent those attitudes are. From the account given of the Gadianton robbers, or indeed of the Nephite wars that take place in the Book of Mormon and are recorded there, there's no dressing up in fancy uniforms, there are no parades, there are no reviews of the troops, or anything like that. It's a very different atmosphere, and guerilla warfare, particularly, is rather unromantic. This is something that Mao and others had to defend themselves against. Some people fighting in their forces were a little bit disappointed with this idea of hitting and running; it wasn't heroic, it wasn't romantic. But it was extremely effective, and it's effective for the Gadianton robbers too, as long as they obey those rules that were first formulated really in this century—but rules that we now know went back into the ancient world. So it's very striking to me how very foreign the Book of Mormon accounts are from what we would expect if Joseph Smith had written the book. It's a quite different world indeed.
Sargon

Re: Impressive Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:47 am
by puritan lad
Sargon wrote:One thing to keep in mind is the possibility of Joseph Smith purposefully including these evidences in the Book of Mormon text.
I thought Smith translated the text from Egyptian. Are you suggesting that they are Smith's own writings?

Besides, didn't the Nephites fight on horseback (despite the fact that there were no horses in ancient America)?

When did the Nephites DNA change so that they were no longer Jewish?

I have many more questions, but your "evidence" is less than impressive.

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:58 pm
by Sargon
I thought Smith translated the text from Egyptian. Are you suggesting that they are Smith's own writings?
Of course I am not. Joseph did not write the book. The statement I made was referring simply to the low degree of possibility, probablity, and likelihood that had Joseph written the book, he could have been able to include these elements in it.
Besides, didn't the Nephites fight on horseback (despite the fact that there were no horses in ancient America)?
There is no indication that the Nephites fought on horseback. Only minimal reference is made of them, and none in wartime(that I can think of off the top of my head). Also, the second half of your claim is completely without foundation.
When did the Nephites DNA change so that they were no longer Jewish?
A heavy topic that I am not prepared to answer. Ill leave it to you to do some research. Others who are far more qualified than I have addressed this topic and I trust that they can give you a thorough refutation.
I have many more questions, but your "evidence" is less than impressive.
You do not find it impressive? Could you write a story that includes a detailed description of a form of war that has been used for millenia, but will not be written down and described by anyone for another hundred years or more?
I doubt you could do it, and Joseph Smith certainly did not do it, unless you maintain that the book was a creation of his mind, or of anyone else's. Spalding did not do it. The best explanation for this phenomena is that the record really is an ancient one, originally penned by those who witnessed the events.

Sargon

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:52 am
by Sargon
I will not venture to address your claims involving horses, or other animals in the Book of Mormon. The issue is trivial, and is based on ignorance of modern research. Much more exhaustive debates about horses can be found in various forums on the web.

Concerning guerilla warfare however, I have comments to make.
If I remember correctly, you argued that Joseph Smith would not have been aware of such tactics as guerilla warfare. I contend that the "idea" of guerilla warfare is not as new as you posted. This from Wikipedia
I agreed that guerilla warfare was not a new art of war in Joseph's time in my first response to puritan lad. Notwithstanding, I find it highly unlikely that he could have produced a description of guerilla warfare such as the one he did, had he written the Book of Mormon.

How do we account for Joseph Smith accurately describing the common tactics, and common mistakes of guerilla warfare? It has been suggested that he learned it from war stories about the Revolutionary War.
I seem to recall in my American History class (really digging deep here!!) learning about the guerilla like fighting that the American revolutionaries anacted when facing the British. I seem to recall that they hid in the trees and attacked in small forces.
Let us examine this claim. First, lets assume for the sake of argument that Joseph did learn about the tactics used in the war, and that he had a firm grasp on their principles.
The 1820's were a time of patriotism. The nation was brand new, and very proud of its revolutionary victories. Had Joseph been schooled on the guerilla methods of the revolutionary war, he would have been taught to view them as a successful means for winning war. Yet guerilla warfare is assigned to the antagonists in the BoM, and they lose using this method. It is employed only once, and it loses. This is not very reflective of what his attitude should have been about guerilla warfare.
Joseph was very patriotic, even running for President at one point in his career. As the article I pasted describes, he loved the romanticism of war, the uniforms, the horses, the parades. Yet all of those things are lacking in the Book of Mormon. War is viewed negatively, and never cast in a good light.
Despite the fact that Joseph had no experience in battle, the Book of Mormon has many many battle scenes. Many chapters are devoted to descriptions of large armies clashing, describing their military tactics. Chapter after chapter describes warfare and politics, establishing the normal methods of battle for the Nephites and Lamanites. Then suddenly, towards the end of the book and out of nowhere we read of a very different kind of battle. It is textbook guerilla warfare. There is no precedent for this in the Book of Mormon.
It is interesting to note that had Joseph ever learned from anyone about the rigors of war, it should have been from someone who participated in guerilla warfare, though it had not yet been named. It was the main strategy of war employed by Washington, and by America. Yet we see that in the BoM it occurs only once. The rest of the BoM battles are much more like british redcoat fighting, with large armies marching and clashing on fields, hill tops, and valleys. This should have been viewed by someone from Joseph's culture in a negative light, since it was after all the method of the enemy.

Now, aside from all that, it is still improbable that Joseph knew the nuances of guerilla warfare. How could he have learned about the correct guerilla tactics and errors? Who would have taught him? He certainly would not have learned it in the 3 small years of formal education he acquired. The art of this type of war never described or written down by anyone until long after Joseph Smith. We know that it had been employed before, but never described and taught.
I also learned that American forces fought a guerilla type war in the Revolution. I know that that involves hiding, and not engaging your enemy on the battlefield. Beyond that, middle school US history did not teach me a thing about guerilla warfare. Find a 23 year old who has never studied guerilla warfare, and challenge him to write a book involving battles, and see if he even thinks to mention any type of battle involving guerilla warfare. Despite the Y chromosome, it is unlikely that would be accomplished. I believe that not even Joseph Smith could do it.

So we are left to conclude one of two options. Either Joseph was a military genius, or the Book of Mormon is authentic. We know that he was not a military genius, by his failed attempt to march Zion's Camp across 2 states to recover their lands. He avoided war at all costs. He was not a military genius.

Sargon

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:13 am
by puritan lad
He was not a genius about early America either.

He was also not a genius about early American fabrics (like "silk").

He was also not a genius about early American Crops (Wheat, Barley, Grapes, Olives).

He was also not a genius about those 1,000 year old quakers who live on the moon.

He was, however, very adapt at plagiarizing the King James Bible (including it's grammatical errors) and seemed to know something about Shakespeare's Hamlet (also quoted in the Book of Mormon).

Amazingly enough, Smith was even able to translate the Egyptian text into English and find ancient Jews (Nephites) with Greek names (Timothy).

Of course, you could always write all of this off as "trivial" and "based on ignorance of modern research". After all, your motto: "Joseph Smith said it, I beleive it, and that settles it".

The Book of Mormon was written by a nutcase who knew very little about God, and even less about ancient America.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:21 am
by Sargon
I recently heard a great word for the kind of strategy that puritan lad is employing, the shotgun approach. Throw as many bullets as you can, none of them well thought out, hoping that one will hit. Even though he knows that their are great answers to each of them, he is hoping that at least one of them will cause me to doubt.
The next step to the analogy is that if I am able to refute even one of his "bullets", it casts a shadow on all the others.
But I see no reason to even acknowledge his mindless shotgun pellets. I opened this thread with the intent of discussing evidences for the book of mormon, not evidences against the book of mormon. Apparently puritan lad is completely oblivious to the fact that evidences could exist for the book of mormon, which has become obvious by his refusal to address them.

Sargon

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:48 pm
by zoegirl
Sargon wrote:I recently heard a great word for the kind of strategy that puritan lad is employing, the shotgun approach. Throw as many bullets as you can, none of them well thought out, hoping that one will hit. Even though he knows that their are great answers to each of them, he is hoping that at least one of them will cause me to doubt.
The next step to the analogy is that if I am able to refute even one of his "bullets", it casts a shadow on all the others.
But I see no reason to even acknowledge his mindless shotgun pellets. I opened this thread with the intent of discussing evidences for the book of mormon, not evidences against the book of mormon. Apparently puritan lad is completely oblivious to the fact that evidences could exist for the book of mormon, which has become obvious by his refusal to address them.

Sargon
Whoa, there !!

We have argued, I think, quite respectably. You have contended that his ignorance lends him credibility, by knowing things he "couldn't possibly know".

First, you started this thread presenting support, however, these threads are not simply meant to be soapboxes where no other opinions are presented....you started with your evidence...we have counterpoints. As long as we are addressing your comments, we have every right to discuss them. PL was commenting on the arguement from ignorance.

Secondly, HUGE assumption into "what he didn't know". Your sources huge foundation in their argument is his ignorance and yet this seems a wimpy arguement. You really don't know what he "didn't know". His creativity or his imagination or his ability to access information from people or books. Many books are written by pseudoexperts, who write a story and yet occasionally hit the right notes. The DaVinci Code is a good example. Here is a book where the author meshed so many "myths" and legends and yet, because some of the bits and pieces were historical, many people believed it as fact. (let me be clear, not necessarily equating the two, just pointings out that ignorance is not the best argument.)

Next, the animal issue (quite offensive to label someone as ignorant...gee, was I wasting those 5 years of graduate school getting my masters in biology?), although maybe not a linchpin in the arguement, does shoot some holes in the credibility. You challenged me with your accusations of "choosing" to be ignorant. Before I even answered you I verified what I knew. I knew your articles already. Simply not impressed by them. Be careful with slinging accusations :o My challenge to you was to present scholarly references in support of the animal evidence. I could give you plenty of references stating the history of fossil evidence (since it was the prevailing view, didn't think this was necessary). Your response was to provide Mormon references , which, for obvious reasons, would be in support of your case. YOur sources either bring "tentative" evidence or simply say that they "didn't really mean" horses or donkey, but were confused. You also like to distract the discussion by simply accusing me of ignorance , not a very good argument. NOt a very convincing line of arguement. Address my challenge.

Finally, you continually distract from the arguement...shotgun approach? Who cares? So what? If they are so easy to address, address them!!

SImply address the issues, let;s not keep throwing out accusations after accusation. You weaken your case by evading the arguments.

Zoegirl

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:04 pm
by Sargon
Zoegirl,

Ill start by addressing your last comment.
SImply address the issues, let;s not keep throwing out accusations after accusation. You weaken your case by evading the arguments.
This statement is exemplary of the type of behavior I am witnessing by my critics at this very moment. I have started a discussion, and it has been avoided by all but yourself. Puritan lad has thrown out accusation after accusation and not once addressed the principal issue.
First, you started this thread presenting support, however, these threads are not simply meant to be soapboxes where no other opinions are presented....you started with your evidence...we have counterpoints
No, I welcome other opinion...when they are relevant to the topic. I addressed your comments about guerilla warfare, while I ignored comments about irrelevant topics such as horses.
As long as we are addressing your comments, we have every right to discuss them. PL was commenting on the arguement from ignorance.
PL has not yet addressed my comments. He was not commenting on the "ignorance" issue, he was making a list of things he believes discredit the Book of Mormon. Any other interpretation of his words is simply dishonest.
Secondly, HUGE assumption into "what he didn't know". Your sources huge foundation in their argument is his ignorance and yet this seems a wimpy arguement. You really don't know what he "didn't know". His creativity or his imagination or his ability to access information from people or books.
We have a list of all the books in the local library where Joseph lived. We have millions of critics who go out of there way everyday researching and researching what exactly Joseph could and couldn't have known. Trust me, we are pretty sure of what he knew and didn't know.
Many books are written by pseudoexperts, who write a story and yet occasionally hit the right notes.
Occasionally is not the right word for the Book of Mormon. Frequently, nay, so much that it is bewildering.
The DaVinci Code is a good example. Here is a book where the author meshed so many "myths" and legends and yet, because some of the bits and pieces were historical, many people believed it as fact. (let me be clear, not necessarily equating the two, just pointings out that ignorance is not the best argument.)
I'm glad your not equating the two. They have absolutely nothing in common. Dan Brown had all the tools he needed to write a historical fiction, Joseph Smith did not.
You challenged me with your accusations of "choosing" to be ignorant. Before I even answered you I verified what I knew. I knew your articles already. Simply not impressed by them. Be careful with slinging accusations Surprised
Because you do not find them impressive does not mean it is not scholarly material. You said that scholars agree. Which scholars? All the ones who do not believe in the Book of Mormon? Hardly unbiased reporting.
My challenge to you was to present scholarly references in support of the animal evidence.
Actually, you did not challenge me to do anything. However, I did present scholarly evidence. You just don't like it.
You also like to distract the discussion by simply accusing me of ignorance , not a very good argument. NOt a very convincing line of arguement. Address my challenge.
You presented yourself as ignorant of the topic by not acknowledging the work done by mormon scholars. This was your fault. And besides that, I am trying to distract from that discussion because it has nothing to do guerilla warfare, which was the topic I advanced.

Finally, you continually distract from the arguement...shotgun approach? Who cares? So what? If they are so easy to address, address them!!
Zoegirl, if you would like for me to address them please open a new thread. This one is about evidence for the book of mormon. Sheesh!!

Sargon

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:01 pm
by zoegirl
Oy!! (accompanied by the sound of bashing my head)

I don't necessarily throw out Mormon scholars. To be honest, have nowhere near the familiarity that the others posting here have. I haven't the expertise to throw away Mormon scholars.

HOWEVER, even saying that, I am not impressed by your sources because those are all you provided (my students sometimes want to use only websites for their research, I want them to use multiple sources). ..I wanted scholars, you give me only MOrmon scholars...and you then simply throw it back as "many other scholars" please, please, please provide me with a multiple sources. And PLEASE don't say that you won't do research...this is easy enough to check.

I am also not impressed with those sources because of their evidence, weak at best. Again, weak evidence and weak arguments. Good grief...I am familiar enough with reseach journals and know their search for significant results. Don't think two teeth are sufficient.

Which scholars agree about the horses!? Good grief...hmmmm....only the scientific community?! (and you can't really argue that they are againts Mormons, most have no bias towards any religion, many dismiss them all equally :wink: )

Let me give you a good example of my criteria...see my link for the research on horses. It is a research journal article for mito.DNA. Find me some scientists or even archaelogists that support your claim of horses and have published in credible journals. At this point I am not regarding this as a religious question, I am regarding this simply as a science question. Just for the sake of argument, let's both avoid any religious sources and focus on the fossil and archealogical evidence.

I am getting frustrated. You hold a double standard...you claim that you provided sources and that I simply "don't like them". And yet if I simply gave you source after source criticizing Mormonsism from only Christian sources, you would quickly point out their bias. So I say to you, what else would I expect from Mormon scholars? This is why, by the way, the creators of this web site search out so many scientific research studies pointing out the problems of evolution....it provides validity because we are seeking evidence from multiple sources, we aren't simply relying on Christian apologists (although please don't take this to mean these aren't the most powerful arguements). Archaeology, science, and philosophy...multiple approaches, multiple support. Reason why I like this website.

By the way, you were the one that claimed that PL's statemnet concerning horses is "completely without foundation" Pretty strong statement.

Now, formally (sorry, thought I had challenged you before :oops: ), provide me with those other scholars. Easy enough...I found your articles before you posted them within 5 minutes on google.


And if you respond now that this issue with the animals is insignificant, it was significant enoguh for you to respond to PL with your vehement response. Back it up

(still don't see how PL's comments were unwarranted).

Zoegirl
[/b]

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:07 am
by zoegirl
Simple questions:

Is not your religions position that there is ample evidence for the support of the presence of extinct animals, thus supporting the Book of Mormons?

Was it not YOU who immediatley shot down PL's comment onthe nonexistence of horses?
Therefore, does it not still fall under the topic?!
Look, I'll gladly let the animal topic die, (ha, go extinct!) but you have never responded (other than by producing less than impressive evidenece)!! You cannot make such a strong statement like yours ("completely without foundation") and not back it up!

You've done this before with GMan's challenge...you simply respond with distractors and vague generalities (many other scholars)....this is an easy thing! With his challenge you simply duck around and hem and haw and start a new thread. With mine you simply say...well, not what I wanted to talk about...well you made that statement. And other than throwing a couple of references by Mormons at me (whihc i already knew), you aren't willing to DISCUSS.


My last post regardig my sources was simply to be fair, I was willing to do my part and provide souorces (which by the way, did you even check?!)
Other than wrting the posts, the research time should not take much, so I must conclude that you are either afraid to research outside the Morman scholars, or that you already know that there is no other outside support, because this is an easy issue to resolve. Either there are outside supporting the archeaological evidence or there isn't....Which one?

Since you want to bring the topic off the alleged support of the animalsl ...fine by me...same challenge...find my ANY scientific, archaeological, or anthropological journal writer/s that supports ANY evidence from Smith's claims. Find any non-Mormon source that is willing to suport the anthropological claims...or other claims. Seems fair to me

(by the way, this is also why I don;t like many of the Young earth studies, because their evidence is weak and they refuse to even examine the science out there)

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:11 am
by puritan lad
Sargon,

You won't get anywhere with me with personal attacks. I'm used to them, and they don't phase me one bit. Ask anyone here. :) I'll just stick with the topic at hand.

As far as my "bullets" go, I have a lot more rounds, but I don't think I need to keep shooting at something that I've already killed. Mormonism requires a total (and illogical) faith in Joseph Smith. It is a faith that has proven to be unwarranted.

As far as your claim that I know that there are many good answers to these "bullets", that is presumptuous. I know of so-called "answers", but not good (or even acceptable) ones. One of your fellow apologists tried to equate "silk" with "rabbit fur". I guess that Egyptian writing was quite confusing to Mr. Smith, eh?

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:37 am
by Sargon
Zoegirl,

You folks are giving me a headache!! :shock:

You continue to claim that I have not been able to produce a good answer to your accusations, and feel a sense of triumph in yourself, that perhaps I have not done so because I can't. Have you not noticed that I have purposefully and repeatedly made it very clear that I am not willing to discuss the topic of horses in the Book of Mormon within this thread?

My quick response to PL was not meant to be an exhaustive answer to his accusations. You are right, it was for the express purpose of shutting him up. I didn't want this thread derailed by his non-relevant accusations.
you aren't willing to DISCUSS.
Late last night I wrote a post on this thread inviting you to open another thread on this topic, telling you that I was perfectly willing to discuss the topic with you, but only in the appropriate thread. I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume that bizzt moved that post out of this thread and into the new one before you wrote this.
I must conclude that you are either afraid to research outside the Morman scholars
Yes zoegirl, that is right. I am terrified to venture beyond my little boxed in world. There are terrible things out there. You nailed it.

Puritan,
As far as my "bullets" go, I have a lot more rounds, but I don't think I need to keep shooting at something that I've already killed. Mormonism requires a total (and illogical) faith in Joseph Smith. It is a faith that has proven to be unwarranted.
Yes PL, your indestructible logic and defenseless assaults have been the cause of many a mass exodus out of the church.

Sargon

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:35 am
by puritan lad
Sargon wrote:
As far as my "bullets" go, I have a lot more rounds, but I don't think I need to keep shooting at something that I've already killed. Mormonism requires a total (and illogical) faith in Joseph Smith. It is a faith that has proven to be unwarranted.
Yes PL, your indestructible logic and defenseless assaults have been the cause of many a mass exodus out of the church.

Sargon
If your talking about the Mormon Church, I'll consider this a good thing.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:35 pm
by hfd