The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[e=mc2]

Gal 1:8:

If you were to read the Bible for what it is intended and not of your own translation you would find that it does not agree with the Book of Mormon.

Kerry:

I have, and I do, and you are simply wrong.

[e=mc2]

Gal 1:8:

I am sorry but according to Scripture, Jesus Christ does not agree with you.

Jesus Christ is not the spirit brother of Lucifer...

Kerry:

This just happens to be an Early Christian teaching and understanding of Lactantius, but lets ignore him because it's so convenient shall we? I also found the idea reiterated by Carl Jung, but what kinda quack was he right?

And if you show me where Jesus ever taught this, it would be helpful. I suspect it's your interpretation of something or other.......... could you explain for us? Thanks

Best,

Kerry

[e=mc2]

Gal 1:8:

And finally, God is not a big man...so let's not make him one!!

Kerry:

I wonder what Jesus would think..........

[e=mc2]

C.I.:

Do non-LDS archeologist ever accept the Book of Mormon account and join the Church? Indeed they do:

Please see: Alejandro and Kim Sarabia. They "have spent a good chunk of their lives researching Teotihuacan, a remarkable archeological zone located about 40 miles northeast of Mexico City."

Kerry:

Thanks for this! That's fascinating! I have never heard this before........FUN!

[Pahoran]

I do not bring attacks to Mormons...I bring attacks to the Theology. [snipped standard anti-Mormon laundry list.]

Pardon me for interrupting Gal, but this is a pinned thread. That means that the TOPIC is of particular interest. The old standard EV flip-flop technique, while it gets some latitude in other threads, is simply rude here. If you have anything to say on the Living Hate Ministries video, or Brant Gardner's review thereof, then say it. But don't just fling around your off-topic list of standard anti-Mormon accusations. We've heard them all before, and they're all bogus anyway.

If you really are ignorant of the responses thereto, I suggest you do two things: (1) check out the FAIR Topical Guide. If you don't see your favourite attack responded to there, then you can raise your questions in new threads.

Incidentally, there is already one running on the preposterous "other Jesus" complaint.

Regards,

Pahoran

[e=mc2]

Pahoran:

You also fail to understand the Latter-day Saints. Unlike you, we are people of faith; something doesn't have to be proven before we believe it. Furthermore, we are Bible believers, not Bible worshippers. We do not require a volume of scripture to be inerrant before we follow its teachings.

Kerry:

That is quite well said........... very powerful. Especially the bolded part.

[Mark Beesley]

Gal 1:8 - Go home to the CC Board. They miss your insight.

[Dale]

[quote name=Gal 1:8' date='

I do not bring attacks to Mormons...I bring attacks to the Theology. If you were to read the Bible for what it is intended and not of your own translation you would find that it does not agree with the Book of Mormon. I am sorry but according to Scripture, Jesus Christ does not agree with you.

Jesus Christ is not the spirit brother of Lucifer...

There is only ONE GOD and not a panthion of Gods forming a Godhead. And finally, God is not a big man...so let's not make him one!!

I do respect you have difficulties with LDS theology. I might share some, but not all of your concerns. Since I am Community of Christ (RLDS) we do use the JST. But in looking at Book of Mormon Bible contradictions I do suggest they are resolveable. The word Firstborn as it applies to Jesus to Evangelicals means pre-eminent. I saw an in-depth word study by Richard Hopkins in his Biblical Mormonism which argued first born can indeed be born first. I feel his word study is sound. So that would make Jesus & Lucifer bothers if sons of the same Father.

LDS apologists have presented solutions to the problem of Collossians 1:16. In the FAIR Topical Guide it has some FAIR brochures which delves into that proof-text, and the issue of Jesus & Lucifer being brothers. LDS tend to view the verse differently than do Evangelicals, and even us Community of Christ. But they state their views better than I can & I direct you to that resource. The book by Richard Hopkins entitled Biblical Mormonism also addresses the topic.

Now RLDS believe in the Trinity. But the concern about one God, and the LDS idea of the Godhead, and the idea of God being a normal sized man like Jesus after his resurrection is addressed at http://www.kevingraham.org/apologia.htm At this website a good section is in the Book Reviews section. It's review of JP Holding's, "Mormon Defenders" is quite interesting. His book which I bought was probably the best attempt by an Evangelical to interact & respond to current LDS apologetics. I felt they did pretty good at defending their positions.

I do hope my answers can help you find some possible answers to your concerns about LDS theology. To get us back on topic though what do you think of Brant Gardners review? Have you seen Bible vs. the Book of Mormon? I have been exposed to both & my belief in the Book of Mormon survives.

[Daniel Peterson]

Gal. 1:8, I started this thread. It was principally intended to announce the appearance of the Brant Gardner review. That mission has obviously been accomplished.

I don't mind discussions of the Brant Gardner review (though I freely admit that I would prefer them to be substantive and to deal in actual issues rather than in caricatures and straw men), but I do object to the appearance, here, of generalized attacks on Mormonism. If you wish to share hoary old anti-Mormon chestnuts on other topics, please start your own thread. Thanks.

[Dale]

We can resolve these issues in another separate section. I do think it needs to quickly get back on topic to the original topic of the thread.

When I saw BIble versus the Book of Mormon they lead me to believe the Bible totally won, and the Book of Mormon lost.

I watched the interview in the film & felt they were leading witnesses so as to get answers that made the Bible look good, and the Book of Mormon look bad.

Is it a low view of the Bible to present an accurate view of the Bible? I do think we need to be honest about problems with religious texts. I do not believe in a world wide flood. I am not satisfied a world wide flood happened.

[Daniel Peterson]

In an effort to help Gervin understand my position (in case that interests him at all), I think I'll try a fictional self-interview. We'll call the interviewer Interested and Civil Gervin (IACG) and we'll call me Daniel Peterson (DP).

IACG: Do you admit that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

DP: I emphatically do not. There are many lines of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon -- philological, archaeological, and other kinds. With Professors Jack Welch and Don Parry, I edited a book about such evidence (Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon), and I've spoken and written frequently on the topic. (Two such lectures have been recorded and are marketed by Covenant Communications under the title Evidence and Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.) FARMS and others have published a great deal of material on this topic. Plainly, I do not "admit" that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

IACG: You say that FARMS has published a great deal of evidence for the Book of Mormon. I'm only interested in non-Mormons who believe the Book of Mormon to be ancient.

DP: It's the evidence and the cogency of its analysis that matter, not who put them together. It would be just as wrong to reject an argument because it was made by a Mormon scholar as to accept an argument on those grounds.

IACG: But if there is so much evidence for the Book of Mormon, why aren't non-Mormon scholars being baptized by the thousands?

DP: First of all, I didn't say that the evidence that exists was sufficiently strong to coerce belief in the Book of Mormon. It is not, and I suspect that God prefers it that way. Second, there is no reason to believe that more than a handful of non-Mormon scholars are really very conversant with Latter-day Saint arguments on this topic.

IACG: So you're saying that non-Mormon scholars are incapable of understanding Mormon arguments relating to the Book of Mormon?

DP: I didn't say that, and I don't believe it. I said that, on the whole, they're not aware of it. If they read the arguments, they are at least as likely to understand them as anybody else would be.

IACG: Then why haven't they joined in droves?

DP: Some have. But, again, most aren't even aware of the arguments. And, anyway, as I've said, the arguments are not such that they would compel belief -- in a scholar or in anybody else.

IACG: Then you admit that your arguments are feeble and unconvincing?

DP: No. Not at all. I believe what I've already said, which is that, while I think they are very helpful to the Book of Mormon, the arguments are not so strong that they will force someone to believe who is strongly disinclined to do so. Anybody who understands a valid geometric proof is obliged to accept its conclusion. No dissenting opinion is logically possible. Arguments for Book of Mormon historicity are not of that kind. Many arguments in such fields as history and archaeology and philosophy are not of that kind.

IACG: So you're saying that faith is a prerequisite for being convinced by your arguments?

DP: No. Not exactly. But I am saying that a strong disinclination to believe in the miraculous (either because one is an atheist who refuses to accept the existence of God or because one is the kind of Christian who insists that revelation perished with the deaths of the ancient apostles, or for whatever reason) will make it harder to accept the Book of Mormon.

IACG: Why? Plenty of atheists and agnostics accept the antiquity of the Bible.

DP: Yes, and plenty of disbelievers in the deity or even existence of Zeus accept the antiquity of the Iliad and the Odyssey. You're talking apples and oranges here. The antiquity of the Bible is uncontested, just like that of the Homeric poems. Nobody disputes that they're ancient, and their transmission from antiquity to English translations in the present requires no miraculous divine intervention to account for it. But the case of the Book of Mormon is dramatically different. Joseph Smith's translation of an authentically ancient Book of Mormon, if it is true, necessarily entails miraculous divine intervention to account for it. Thus, a person strongly opposed to the notion of miracles and divine action has an additional hurdle to overcome in order to believe in the Book of Mormon, as compared with someone disposed on other grounds to be sympathetic to the concept of miracles and divine action.

IACG: But if your proofs are as strong as you say they are, what has faith got to do with it?

DP: As I've said, our arguments--I do not speak of "proofs" but of "evidence"--are a mixed bag. Some are weak, some are pretty strong, and some, in my opinion, are extremely striking and impressive. But the evidentiary situation falls between "proof," on the one hand, and utter lack of evidence, on the other. Which means that people will have to make up their own minds as to what they find persuasive, and that, accordingly, conclusions will differ. And among the factors that will affect those conclusions in different individuals are the predispositions, prejudices, and assumptions that a given person brings to the issue. Some, open to the idea of post-biblical divine revelation (or, at least, to divine revelation at any period), are likely to be more sympathetic to the claims of the Book of Mormon than those who simply rule out the notion of divine revelation in the first place.

IACG: Thanks. This has been very helpful. I think I understand your position better now.

DP: Happy to help.

[asciikerr]

Wow...you have way too much time on your hands!

But I thank you for the time well spent in writing the below information.

Even if it didn't help Gervin, it certainly helps reflect how I feel concerning the whole matter.

DP: Yes, and plenty of disbelievers in the deity or even existence of Zeus accept the antiquity of the Iliad and the Odyssey. You're talking apples and oranges here. The antiquity of the Bible is uncontested, just like that of the Homeric poems. Nobody disputes that they're ancient, and their transmission from antiquity to English translations in the present requires no miraculous divine intervention to account for it. But the case of the Book of Mormon is dramatically different. Joseph Smith's translation of an authentically ancient Book of Mormon, if it is true, necessarily entails miraculous divine intervention to account for it. Thus, a person strongly opposed to the notion of miracles and divine action has an additional hurdle to overcome in order to believe in the Book of Mormon, as compared with someone disposed on other grounds to be sympathetic to the concept of miracles and divine action.

Oddly enough, these are the exact same points I've been trying to raise...

1. The antiquity of the Bible is uncontested as opposed to the Book of Mormon.

2. No required miraculous intervention to account for its translation as opposed to the Book of Mormon.

3. Book of Mormon requires additional faith (Extra Hurdles) to:

*Believe it was miraculously translated by divine actions.

*Believe the people and places existed as written in the Book of Mormon.

4. My faith in the Bible *doesn't require me to jump that extra hurdle of those who believe in the Book of Mormon. LDS have to take it up on faith that those civilizations, places and things existed as the Book of Mormon says it did. I don't have to take it up on faith to believe the places and civilizations spoken of in the Book of Mormon existed. Events such as the flood and such do require faith...but again. Its one less hurdle than if I were an LDS who believed soley on the basis of my testimony and the Book of Mormon.

IACG: But if your proofs are as strong as you say they are, what has faith got to do with it?

DP: As I've said, our arguments--I do not speak of "proofs" but of "evidence"--are a mixed bag. Some are weak, some are pretty strong, and some, in my opinion, are extremely striking and impressive. But the evidentiary situation falls between "proof," on the one hand, and utter lack of evidence, on the other. Which means that people will have to make up their own minds as to what they find persuasive, and that, accordingly, conclusions will differ. And among the factors that will affect those conclusions in different individuals are the predispositions, prejudices, and assumptions that a given person brings to the issue. Some, open to the idea of post-biblical divine revelation (or, at least, to divine revelation at any period), are likely to be more sympathetic to the claims of the Book of Mormon than those who simply rule out the notion of divine revelation in the first place.

Fantastic...someone that has it right.

Arguments not specifically based upon "proofs" which the video harps about.

But LDS Scholars provide arguments based on evidence and plausability.

Simply ground-breaking, if I understood you correctly.

*edited typo

[Daniel Peterson]

Wow...you have way too much time on your hands!

I'm efficient.

1. The antiquity of the Bible is uncontested as opposed to the Book of Mormon.

2. No required miraculous intervention to account for its translation as opposed to the Book of Mormon.

3. Book of Mormon requires additional faith (Extra Hurdles) to:

*Believe it was miraculously translated by divine actions.

*Believe the people and places existed as written in the Book of Mormon.

4. My faith in the Bible does require me to jump that extra hurdle of those who believe in the Book of Mormon.  LDS have to take it up on faith that those civilizations, places and things existed as the Book of Mormon says it did.  I don't have to take it up on faith to believe the places and civilizations spoken of in the Book of Mormon existed.  Events such as the flood and such do require faith...but again.  Its one less hurdle than if I were an LDS who believed soley on the basis of my testimony and the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps it won't surprise you to learn that I look at this very differently than you do.

To me, the Book of Mormon constitutes additional evidence that the fundamental messages of the Bible -- that God lives, cares about and intervenes in human affairs, has a divine Son whom he sent into the world to atone for our sins, etc. -- are true. Otherwise, the argument that all we have in the Bible is an ancient collection of tall tales told by primitive and superstitious peoples would carry considerably more weight with me. However, the miraculous appearance of the Book of Mormon in the nineteenth century, attested by the very strong testimony of witnesses, etc., reinforces the message of the Bible with dramatic modern confirmation.

Fantastic...someone that has it right. 

Arguments not specifically based upon "proofs" which the video harps about.

But LDS Scholars provide arguments based on evidence and plausability.

Simply ground-breaking, if I understood you correctly. 

I trust that you understand that I believe arguments for the historicity of the pre-exilic monarchy and the accuracy of the Hebrew Bible as a whole (to say nothing of historical arguments for the accuracy of the New Testament gospels, let alone for the resurrection of Jesus) do not rise to the level of "proof," either. The best that can be done in these cases, as in a very high proportion of historical debates generally, is to indicate plausibility and probability.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Asciikerr,

Events such as the flood and such do require faith...but again. Its one less hurdle than if I were an LDS who believed soley on the basis of my testimony and the Book of Mormon.

And here is where your position is problematic. Who cares how many hurdles a person has to jump through if the book is true? In fact, if the Book of Mormon were true, jumping through those extra hurdles would no doubt prove edifying from a spiritual perspective.

***Edit: On second thought, I suppose a runner technically jumps over hurdles, not through them. Either way, a runner who successfully leaps over more hurdles than his opponents no doubt stands in a superior position than his rivals come the day of the big race.

[Confidential Informant]

Consider: one of the biggest critques or downfalls or shortcomings (make your pick) of the Bible is that even though we know its "old" that doesn't prove that it's "true." In otherwords, the fact that Ninevah exists and has been found in no way "proves" that Jonah was swalled by a fish. The fact that we know where the sea of Gallile (sp?) is doesn't "prove" that Jesus walked on water. Just because we know where the Temple was and where Jerusalem is not even "evidence" that Jesus was crucified, laid in a tomb for three days and rose again the third day. There exists no evidence which could ever "prove" any of those things....

except

The Book of Mormon. If it could be established that the Book of Mormon was an authentically ancient record then that fact could be used as evidence to establish the reality of the miracles mentioned in the Bible. While I suppose it's possible that even if the B of M was proven authentic some hardliners would still look for naturalistic explanations, the fact is that Joseph's explanation of how he got the book would be the single best explanation and if his explanation is true then it serves as foundational evidence for the reality of all the miracles and supernatural events in the Bible.

One would think that that being the case, all Christians would be rooting for the Book of Mormon to be authentic because if found to be so it would establish the reality of the foundational events of your own faith while requiring a relatively small paradigm shift on their own part.

C.I.

[asciikerr]

Perhaps it won't surprise you to learn that I look at this very differently than you do.

To me, the Book of Mormon constitutes additional evidence that the fundamental messages of the Bible -- that God lives, cares about and intervenes in human affairs, has a divine Son whom he sent into the world to atone for our sins, etc. -- are true. Otherwise, the argument that all we have in the Bible is an ancient collection of tall tales told by primitive and superstitious peoples would carry considerably more weight with me. However, the miraculous appearance of the Book of Mormon in the nineteenth century, attested by the very strong testimony of witnesses, etc., reinforces the message of the Bible with dramatic modern confirmation.

Is my understanding correct when I say:

The Book of Mormon is to the LDS what the:

1. New Testament is to the Christians? - God's continued revelation of Jesus (Himself) from the Old Testament (Old World) to the New Testament?

2. Koran is to the Muslims? God's continued revelation of Himself from the Old Testament (Old World) to the Quran.

3. Essentially, you see the Book of Mormon as another one of God's continued revelations concerning Himself and His plan for our lives.

4. You believe the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict the Bible but in fact reinforces the Gospel message if not restores it completely from its fallen state.

5. Had the Book of Mormon not came along for modern times, you may have been more easily swayed by humanist arguments, but the Book's miraculous translation through Joseph Smith coupled with the strong testimony of the witnesses which solidly confirm the person of Jesus Christ and the Message of Hope in Him provide you with the extra stability of evidence needed to withstand these arguments. Arguments that propose the Bible is nothing more than ancient fabled myths and folklore, passed on through the unreliability of oral traditions, perishable texts and changed accordingly by men who sought only to cheat the weak-minded by using their faith and religion against them in order to advance or profit their own agenda. Am I correct or remotely in the neighborhood concerning my assumption of the subject matter?

(asciikerr @ Feb 7 2006, 11:03 PM)

Fantastic...someone that has it right. 

Arguments not specifically based upon "proofs" which the video harps about.

But LDS Scholars provide arguments based on evidence and plausability.

Simply ground-breaking, if I understood you correctly.

I trust that you understand that I believe arguments for the historicity of the pre-exilic monarchy and the accuracy of the Hebrew Bible as a whole (to say nothing of historical arguments for the accuracy of the New Testament gospels, let alone for the resurrection of Jesus) do not rise to the level of "proof," either. The best that can be done in these cases, as in a very high proportion of historical debates generally, is to indicate plausibility and probability.

I don't believe the video ever asked for actual "proofs" concerning the things of faith; such as Jesus' resurrection or the probability of a world wide flood. Their proofs centered not on matters of faith, but on archeological proofs that are common with ancient civilizations. Such as, we know the Mayan's existed because we have their temples & evidence. We know Egyptians existed because of the very large roadblocks they built and left in the desert. Again, the video only looked at actual historical evidence or "proofs" of existence for civilizations by way of their: technology, artifacts, coinage, humain remains, weaponry, texts, cities, structures etc. The video then leaves "events" such as the parting of the Red Sea, Christ's resurrection and miracles up to the individual believer as matters of faith.

The whole argument being...these great vast civilizations that numbered in the millions and simply vanished without leaving a trace of their existence should not have to be a matter of faith, but unfortunately for those who do believe in the Book of Mormon...faith in these matters is essential where with the Bible, they are not because we have evidence and proofs of a civilizations existence. Matters of faith should remain focus on the things that require faith, such as the promise Jesus made to us that He would come back for us. That we are going to spend eternity with Him and we need not worry about this world but stay focused on Him and Him alone to guide us through. Our faith should not have to incorporate the lack of evidence of an entire advanced civilization, those types of evidences should be left up to proof and not be supported soley by faith. The things of faith that are unseen should be concering Heavenly things, and promises yet to be fulfilled. I don't believe faith in the unseen was ever meant to incorporate lost nations, places or things...

I believe I understand the LDS dilemma well...critics are seemigly howling and barking at The Church for factual "proof" similar to those found in the Bible (not miracles or matters of faith) such as historic cities, places and artifacts. The best than can be done is provide well supported scholarly work that shows a plethora of suggestive evidence which still border on the plausible which is only quickly dismissed by its critics as deceptive advancements in the profession of spin-doctoring. While believers pick and choose sides concerning their faith between what prophets have taught in the past and what is believed according to good scholarly work, while The Church presidency continues to remains silent with no offical positions or changes concerning the matter at hand.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is my understanding correct when I say:

The Book of Mormon is to the LDS what the:

1. New Testament is to the Christians? - God's continued revelation of Jesus (Himself) from the Old Testament (Old World) to the New Testament?

I think it would be accurate to say that the New Testament is to Latter-day Saint Christians what the New Testament is to Christians generally.

The Book of Mormon is a scriptural text for Mormons, just as the Bible is. The books of Mosiah and Alma are examples of divinely revealed scripture just as are the books of Acts and 1 Corinthians.

2. Koran is to the Muslims?  God's continued revelation of Himself from the Old Testament (Old World) to the Quran.

In the sense that the Qur

[Calm]

foundational evidence for the reality of all the miracles and supernatural events in the Bible

I'm not sure you can make the claim for all the miracles, but certainly the most important ones, especially the life and atonement of Christ.

[Dale]

Praise The Lord!!! It's good to see a person who has reconciled to God and not Mormon Gospel......thanks asciikerr!!!!!

The only reason I would need to be reconciled to your God, and gospel myself is if I become convinced the Book of Mormon is not true. To me this film under discussion is one the best attempts by Evangelicals to try & convince me that the Book of Mormon is untrue. And to me they failed to convince me. To me it's a sincere, but unsound attempt to try & get me to trust the Bible alone.

I am reconciled to my God & Jesus Gospel already. It's not the Mormon Gospel, but Jesus Gospel.

[Gal 1:8]

I am reconciled to my God & Jesus Gospel already. It's not the Mormon Gospel, but Jesus Gospel.

What in the world does this mean????? You are reconciled to the Gospel of Jesus but do not rely on the Bible alone??

You have a received another Gospel of Jesus Christ and considered it true...This is exactly what Paul warned about to the Galations. Read Galations Chapter 1:1-8

I know you have probably already been directed to this scripture many times...but I pray to that you will not once again reject it. I dont hate Mormons nor am I anti-Mormon...if anything, I have a compassion for the Mormon people. They have great zeal for the Lord, but lack knowledge......God Bless

[Daniel Peterson]

Please stay off of this thread, Gal 1:8, unless you are prepared to discuss the subject of this thread, and unless you are prepared to do so in a substantive way.

Thank you.

[Confidential Informant]

You are reconciled to the Gospel of Jesus but do not rely on the Bible alone??

You know, the "bible" as you know it didn't even come into existence unto about 300+ years after Christ's death. The earliest gospels weren't written until decades after His death. What were those Christians "relying" on who lived prior to that time?

You have a received another Gospel of Jesus Christ and considered it true...This is exactly what Paul warned about to the Galations.  Read Galations Chapter 1:1-8

Read it. But how do you know that your Gospel isn't "another" gospel? I mean, you got yours from Martin Luther and Calvin and Wesley, et al., how do you know that Gospel they gave you isn't "different" from the one preached by Paul? It certainly seems to have some glaring descrepancies. And of course, theo "oldest" gospel is that taught by the Catholic Church and your's is certainly different that theirs, so how do you know the Catholic Gospel isn't the right one and your reformers gave you the wrong one?

I know you have probably already been directed to this scripture many times...but I pray to that you will not once again reject it.

We don't reject it. In fact, we firmly believe that we are practicing the same gospel Paul preached.

I dont hate Mormons nor am I anti-Mormon

No, you're just a bit of bigot and more than a little undereducated with a dash of condescension to make the combo really appealling.

if anything, I have a compassion for the Mormon people. 

Yes, we've seen your type of compassion before. It usually takes the form of horribly misleading movies, rude, vile and disgusting protesters in front of our meetings calling our women whores and condeming us all to hell, and even in some cases driving us out of our homes and even murdering us. Gotta love that compassion.

They have great zeal for the Lord, but lack knowledge......God Bless

I'm sorry, I missed the part of YOUR gospel where a correct "knowledge" was the key to salvation. I was always told it was salvation by faith and grace. What scripture do you refer to that says we are saved by grace & correct doctrinal understanding? Or is that "special" requirement reserved for Mormons only? You seem to admit that we have "zeal for the Lord" I can only take that to mean we have faith. So where is the requirement of correct "knowledge" found in the Bible?

C.I.

[Dunamis]

Get back on topic. Gal. 1:8, take the show elsewhere. This is a board for discussion not witnessing. Further disruptions will be removed and you will be queued or suspended.

Please do not respond to off topic provocation so it can be removed.

[noel00]

Gal 1:8, Dietrich Bonhoeffer "saw little point in theological argument if truth does not matter. He was, for example, quite critical of his fellow students at Union Theological Seminary. In his report... he noted the upbringing and education of American students was essentilly different from the education German students receive. ... In America, the tension between the attempt to say the truth and the will of the community, the latter always prevails. Fairness not truth becomes the primary commitment necessary to sustain community for Americans. As a result "a certain levelling in intellectual demands and accomplishments,,,, Intellectual competition and ambition are lacking, making innocous the work done in seminar, discussion, and lecture"

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/refl..._6/hauerwas.htm

How rigorous is the debate over the BOM? What substantive evidence is there that such a civilisation ever existed in Mesoamerica? Its all seems to be inhouse.

[Dale]

Oddly enough, these are the exact same points I've been trying to raise...

1. The antiquity of the Bible is uncontested as opposed to the Book of Mormon.

2. No required miraculous intervention to account for its translation as opposed to the Book of Mormon.

3. Book of Mormon requires additional faith (Extra Hurdles) to:

*Believe it was miraculously translated by divine actions.

*Believe the people and places existed as written in the Book of Mormon.

4. My faith in the Bible *doesn't require me to jump that extra hurdle of those who believe in the Book of Mormon.