Answers from Reason & From Emotion

[DBMormon]

40 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's a great debate - I watched it several weeks ago. As an aside, in Mormonism we often speak about people's "countenance" saying something about their closeness to God or the Holy Spirit. Spong definitely has the countenance of one filled with the love of God. His opponent  (White) didn't seem to have that, maybe because he was so busy arguing for something that is not loving by its very nature. 

what are your thoughts on Whites becoming Spongs and Spongs becoming Whites?  do you see it as a one way road as well?

I found it odd no one else wanted to approach that point I made.

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think this illustrates the ultimate critical problem. Any way you slice it, the LDS Church has hitched its cart to a very literal interpretation of certain events and people. 

It's a nice idea (for some) to imagine there is some evolved version of Mormonism that can move beyond such literal claims and change while still somehow remaining the same "Mormonism", but I think most current LDS leaders (and members) can't see the path to such a "narrative." 

In the end, this may be where the Church is forced to take a stand.  They've already given up ground on evolution, but there is only so far they can go before they run into serious problems with the claims of Joseph Smith and subsequent Church leaders.

hitching yourself to truth claims that become problematic when higher criticism of scripture is undertaken pushes one into a tough spot.  When one gathers the scholarship for biblical studies and grapples with where the the data leads one must have room to back away from ground that can no longer be defended without being unreasonable

[DBMormon]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Part of LDS doctrine is that satan is capable of creating (and does create) imitations of truth.  I have no idea if you believe that's true or not, but from my perspective (as someone who does believe it's true), there are people who have interacted with the divine and there are people who claim they have but actually haven't.  From that perspective, one is very much different from the other.

And if one is very much different from the other, treating them all the same can't really help us interact with the divine.  Imitations of the divine are sent specifically to remove us from the divine.

except if the data and evidence and scholarship of the old and new testament are to be believed (what the most respected and majority of biblical scholars say about who wrote the bible, and are the people and stories literal and historical on a case by case basis), much of it was embellished and much of it is fictional myth.  And much of it claims to be one author when in realty it was assuredly (in my mind) written by someone completely different.  When you come to see much of the bible is fictional myth  then there is room for Joseph to have given you fictional myth (generally and not a blanket statement).

Edited October 14, 2016 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

CFR on Noah laying his hands on Joseph Smith's head, and JFS seeing Noah...

Not that I doubt you, just like to see the sources please...

1. JOSEPH SMITH AND NOAH
Reasoned connection (as per Joseph Fielding Smith)

D&C 110: 12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.
D&C 27: 7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;
Luke 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

• “Joseph Smith revealed that Gabriel was Noah; Luke declared that it was the angel Gabriel who appeared to Zacharias and Mary; and the Lord has declared that Elias appeared to Zacharias and Joseph Smith. Therefore, Elias is Noah” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 3:141).
• "Elias came and restored the gospel of Abraham. Who was Elias? That question is frequently asked. Well, Elias was Noah, who came and restored his keys." (Joseph Fielding Smith - Conference Report April 1960 pg 72).

It's true official Church position today is we don't know who that Elias was.  I'll go with Joseph Fielding Smith on this one.


2. JOSEPH F. SMITH AND NOAH
Scriptural reference.

D&C 138:38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,
39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.
40 Abel, the first martyr, was there, and his brother Seth, one of the mighty ones, who was in the express image of his father, Adam.
41 Noah, who gave warning of the flood; Shem, the great high priest; Abraham, the father of the faithful; Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, the great law-giver of Israel;

 

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

what are your thoughts on Whites becoming Spongs and Spongs becoming Whites?  do you see it as a one way road as well?

I found it odd no one else wanted to approach that point I made.

I think you might be on to something there. Spong frequently talks about his fundamentalist upbringing. He started out as a literalist, and furthermore was raised with sexist, homophobic, even anti-semitic views, all of which he has abandoned in favor of progressive Christianity. I haven't heard of someone starting out with a nuanced faith and turning into a fundamentalist.  It's hard to imagine, but I don't know how you could rule out the possibility. I think there is a lot of work to get to a nuanced faith that isn't required with fundamentalism. I've heard of apathetic atheists becoming Christian fundamentalists, but apathetic atheism doesn't require a great deal of work either.

But here's the thing - a nuanced faith doesn't require work to maintain. Once it dawns on you, it's obvious. You've seen it and you can't unsee it. You don't have to believe anything that actually isn't true (or rather, likely to be factual). Your beliefs can actually align 100% with your own life experiences and with the scientific/academic world as well. There is no cognitive dissonance. 

I would think that for a Spong to become a White would be something like someone choosing to forego adult speech in favor of the baby talk they started out life with. Hard to imagine, but I suppose it's possible. People are sometimes unpredictable. 

Interesting question. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

except if the data and evidence and scholarship of the old and new testament are to be believed (what the most respected and majority of biblical scholars say about who wrote the bible, and are the people and stories literal and historical on a case by case basis), much of it was embellished and much of it is fictional myth.  And much of it claims to be one author when in realty it was assuredly (in my mind) written by someone completely different.  When you come to see much of the bible is fictional myth  then there is room for Joseph to have given you fictional myth (generally and not a blanket statement).

I agree.   Relying on the conclusions of people to determine what you can and can't believe has some serious flaws.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

How would you determine if those experiences were visions vs visitations?

Joseph F. Smith was specifically a vision.
Joseph Smith received priesthood keys in Kirtland.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I know who Dehlin's source is.  I have been "in the room" when this source shared their insight.  Part of an anonymous source is to remain anonymous.  As a journalist I am sure you can respect that.  So lets just say I have an inside perspective from time to time.  you can believe what you want but that is as much as I am willing to say officially.

So you're refusing to answer the CFR, then.

Is this alleged "insight" documented anywhere on the internet, anonymously or otherwise? Is it corroborated by any other source or sources? (I realize you're no journalist, but responsible journalists, if they use anonymous sources at all, will not publish the information without getting independent corroboration.)

What does "in the room" mean? And why did you put that phrase in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?

Edited October 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're refusing to answer the CFR, then.

Is this alleged "insight" documented anywhere on the internet, anonymously or otherwise? Is it corroborated by any other source or sources? (I realize you're no journalist, but responsible journalists, if they use anonymous sources at all, will not publish the information without getting independent corroboration.)

What does "in the room" mean? And why did you put that phrase in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?

Quit browbeating him, Scott. Either the handbook will be changed next year, in which case he will be vindicated, or it won't, in which case you will do an endzone dance. He's said it's an anonymous source, and that you are free to believe or disbelieve that, and that he doesn't want to say anything beyond that. 

I don't know what continuing to brandish this CFR not answered to your satisfaction does for anyone, other then perhaps continue to try to publicly rub salt in his wounds.

And I'm not a Bill Reel fan, either. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

1. JOSEPH SMITH AND NOAH
Reasoned connection (as per Joseph Fielding Smith)

D&C 110: 12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.
D&C 27: 7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;
Luke 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

• “Joseph Smith revealed that Gabriel was Noah; Luke declared that it was the angel Gabriel who appeared to Zacharias and Mary; and the Lord has declared that Elias appeared to Zacharias and Joseph Smith. Therefore, Elias is Noah” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 3:141).
• "Elias came and restored the gospel of Abraham. Who was Elias? That question is frequently asked. Well, Elias was Noah, who came and restored his keys." (Joseph Fielding Smith - Conference Report April 1960 pg 72).

It's true official Church position today is we don't know who that Elias was.  I'll go with Joseph Fielding Smith on this one.


2. JOSEPH F. SMITH AND NOAH
Scriptural reference.

D&C 138:38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,
39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.
40 Abel, the first martyr, was there, and his brother Seth, one of the mighty ones, who was in the express image of his father, Adam.
41 Noah, who gave warning of the flood; Shem, the great high priest; Abraham, the father of the faithful; Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, the great law-giver of Israel;

Thank you for the effort. I don't feel too convinced tho. I've always interpreted that Elias as Elijah who would return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord per Malachi.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you for the effort. I don't feel too convinced tho. I've always interpreted that Elias as Elijah who would return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord per Malachi.

Why would Elijah bring the keys of the dispensation of Abraham (D&C 110:12)?

It's also intriguing that the line of authority in D&C 84 traces back to Esaias, who "also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him." This Esaias "received it under the hand of God." I wonder what conditions required him to be ordained by Elohim himself, when he was blessed by Abraham? Since D&C 84 has Elias restoring the keys of the dispensation of Abraham, I think Elias is this Esaias, of whom nothing else is known. I wonder why Abraham didn't restore these keys?

Interesting, too, is the fact that section 84 has Abraham "receiv[ing] the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah." This wording seems to undercut those who claim that Melchizedek was Shem (Noah's son).  

I think I just heard Bill Reel's head explode. "Silly simpleton Mormons. Tangible angels, priesthood keys, actual visitations --- not just subjective visions." 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Quit browbeating him, Scott. Either the handbook will be changed next year, in which case he will be vindicated, or it won't, in which case you will do an endzone dance. He's said it's an anonymous source, and that you are free to believe or disbelieve that, and that he doesn't want to say anything beyond that. 

I don't know what continuing to brandish this CFR not answered to your satisfaction does for anyone, other then perhaps continue to try to publicly rub salt in his wounds.

And I'm not a Bill Reel fan, either. 

What it "does for anyone" is it goes to the credibility of the assertion. 

One of the strengths of this board (one that keeps me engaged here) is that commenters typically aren't permitted to make assertions recklessly. They must be backed up with documentation/evidence when required. That makes this board a cut above, say, the typical anonymous reader comment section of an online newspaper. 

And "rubbing salt in his wounds"? Spare me the histrionics. He has no wound to rub salt into. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What it "does for anyone" is it goes to the credibility of the assertion. 

One of the strengths of this board (one that keeps me engaged here) is that commenters typically aren't permitted to make assertions recklessly. They must be backed up with documentation/evidence when required. That makes this board a cut above, say, the typical anonymous reader comment section of an online newspaper. 

And "rubbing salt in his wounds"? Spare me the histrionics. He has no wound to rub salt into. 

I'm still not sure from this if you're going to continue to demand a CFR from him. Based on his response, are you now going to let it go? 

[DBMormon]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're refusing to answer the CFR, then.

Is this alleged "insight" documented anywhere on the internet, anonymously or otherwise? Is it corroborated by any other source or sources? (I realize you're no journalist, but responsible journalists, if they use anonymous sources at all, will not publish the information without getting independent corroboration.)

What does "in the room" mean? And why did you put that phrase in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?

Thats as much as I can say without giving up my source.  Sorry.  God bless you Scott and have an incredible day!

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Quit browbeating him, Scott. Either the handbook will be changed next year, in which case he will be vindicated, or it won't, in which case you will do an endzone dance. He's said it's an anonymous source, and that you are free to believe or disbelieve that, and that he doesn't want to say anything beyond that. 

I don't know what continuing to brandish this CFR not answered to your satisfaction does for anyone, other then perhaps continue to try to publicly rub salt in his wounds.

And I'm not a Bill Reel fan, either. 

thank you.

[DBMormon]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

You've seen it and you can't unsee it.

yep but it is also strange if you haven't seen it you struggle to even fathom it.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

thank you.

You are welcome. 

We don't agree on much, but I am really tired of CFRs being used as a stick to beat people with. They are good when used appropriately, but can be used to harass people or try to embarrass them --- especially when used with incessant "bumping."

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Why would Elijah bring the keys of the dispensation of Abraham (D&C 110:12)?

It's also intriguing that the line of authority in D&C 84 traces back to Esaias, who "also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him." This Esaias "received it under the hand of God." I wonder what conditions required him to be ordained by Elohim himself, when he was blessed by Abraham? Since D&C 84 has Elias restoring the keys of the dispensation of Abraham, I think Elias is this Esaias, of whom nothing else is known. I wonder why Abraham didn't restore these keys?

Interesting, too, is the fact that section 84 has Abraham "receiv[ing] the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah." This wording seems to undercut those who claim that Melchizedek was Shem (Noah's son).  

I think I just heard Bill Reel's head explode. "Silly simpleton Mormons. Tangible angels, priesthood keys, actual visitations --- not just subjective visions." 

 

 

Elias isn't mentioned in DC 84. It says Esaias was blessed "of him" maybe it means not "by him"? Maybe Abraham died before he could be blessed by him or was busy with Isaac

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There is actual evidence for the confusion of tongues. After Noah Sargon of Akkad came to rule Sumeria. Sargon may have been the biblical Nimrod who inherited Babel and Akkad.

Sargon may also be Melchizedek (their names have the same meaning).  However, this is much too late.   The “great tower” is associated with the confusion of tongues^[1] episode in Genesis 11:1-9 (migdāl) and Ether 1:33-37, recalling the Sumerian “Golden Age” passage in which “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue (eme-aš-àm) gave praise,” to be followed shortly by the struggle between Enlil and Enki, lord of Eridu, who “changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”[2] 

---

^[1] Sumerian EME.BI.GILIM = Akkadian lišānšunu e-eg-ru (CAD, “E,” 42, citing UET, 1, 146, ili, 7, iv, 7 [Hammurabi]); S. N. Kramer, “The ‘Babel of Tongues’: A Sumerian Version,” in W. W. Hallo, ed., Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, AOS 53 (New Haven, 1968), 108-111 = JAOS, 88 (1968).

[2] S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, rev. ed. (Harper & Row, 1961/reprint Univ. of Penn. Press, 1972), xiv,107 n. 2.

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 ...........................................................................

"Scholars" largely don't believe the apostles wrote any of the NT either due to things like prophecies of the destruction of the temple being included. I wonder what they think of Daniel's prophecy of the destruction of the city in Daniel 9? Some Jew must have "snuck" that in there later since it came to pass...

"Scholars" also don't believe in the exodus, Moses, etc, etc. Come to think of it "scholars" generally dismiss the authorship of most all of the Bible. I know that is the "in thing" to do, but if one does that, they destroy their faith. I personally have found the Bible to be highly accurate.

You need to read and then cite those horrible "scholars," rather than make generic claims.  As to the Exodus and Moses, see my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I find you being rude here and am unsure why.  Why assume another knows nothing.  .....................................

.............................  Here is a video link to a 3 hour debate between James White and John Shelby Spong

...............................................
James White is a literal believer.   He knows he is right.  He is confident that the outer authority in his life (for him the bible) is dependable and can not lead him astray.  He has so much certainty and is deeply bothered by folks who he feels know nothing.  He is irritated by them and is so sure of himself that anyone who disagrees is obviously not as informed or as proficient.   There is not a question that he does not feel he has a adequate answer to.

.........................................................

John Shelby Spong is a mystical believer.  By that I mean he realizes there are a whole lot answers and a whole lot more questions than most people think.  It means he does not interpret scripture literally the way its authors of scripture imposed it (he does not take the authorities too seriously).  He rests his authority within himself and does not pass it off to those higher mortal authorities or to any authoritative writings as dependable for having the answer.  Rather these authorities are simply tools not designed to hand him absolute truth but rather to help him engage in the mystery.  He does not take Jesus literally nor does he even care to engage looking for that answer.   Rather his spirituality is based in the questions and a recognition that what we think we know isn't known and is still a mystery.

Many in our faith either out of ignorance or our of pride assume the mystical believer is wrong, uninformed, or mentally challenged, or intentionally set to device.  but he who does this misses a great insight.

Every day people like James white are moving through a faith development process and head towards the paradigm of Spong.  .......................

........................................

Robert I used to find you cordial but in recent months you have taken more of a speak down to attitude.  I am sad to see that.  

.........................................................

The shoe is actually on the other foot, Bill.  In addition to James White being a rabid anti-Mormon, both White and Spong are well-known members of moribund christianity.  The only thing we can really learn from either one is how not to be an authentic Christian.  They are both well-intentioned, but their churches are collapsing and disappearing.  If we adopt their beliefs, we will likewise fail and disappear.  On the other hand, they might well learn something from the LDS tradition about what successful Christianity looks like.  They probably won't.

Reminds me of the late, great Jewish scholar at Berkeley, Jacob Milgrom.  He made it very clear that homosexuality is forbidden to Jews, but not to non-Jews.  If he is correct, then the discussion is over.  Perhaps, however, some other viewpoint is correct.  How can we be sure?  Ultimately, we must follow our individual conscience in all such matters.  That is the best we can do.  In debate on any issues, we should adopt irenic instead of polemic methods.

The problem you seem to have, and which is made clear in your comments on this board, is that you do not understand the issues, and you don't seem interested in informing yourself.  You are like the guy who wants to practice brain surgery, but who refuses to study medicine and neurosurgery for the many years required before one is prepared to perform brain surgery.  Because I am willing to do you the favor of telling you the truth about your lack of knowledge (which I do not assume, but judge directly on the basis of what you write now and in the past), you claim that I am being rude and uncordial.  Maybe so.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The shoe is actually on the other foot, Bill.  In addition to James White being a rabid anti-Mormon, both White and Spong are well-known members of moribund christianity.  The only thing we can really learn from either one is how not to be an authentic Christian.  They are both well-intentioned, but their churches are collapsing and disappearing.  If we adopt their beliefs, we will likewise fail and disappear.  On the other hand, they might well learn something from the LDS tradition about what successful Christianity looks like.  They probably won't.

Reminds me of the late, great Jewish scholar at Berkeley, Jacob Milgrom.  He made it very clear that homosexuality is forbidden to Jews, but not to non-Jews.  If he is correct, then the discussion is over.  Perhaps, however, some other viewpoint is correct.  How can we be sure?  Ultimately, we must follow our individual conscience in all such matters.  That is the best we can do.  In debate on any issues, we should adopt irenic instead of polemic methods.

The problem you seem to have, and which is made clear in your comments on this board, is that you do not understand the issues, and you don't seem interested in informing yourself.  You are like the guy who wants to practice brain surgery, but who refuses to study medicine and neurosurgery for the many years required before one is prepared to perform brain surgery.  Because I am willing to do you the favor of telling you the truth about your lack of knowledge (which I do not assume, but judge directly on the basis of what you write now and in the past), you claim that I am being rude and uncordial.  Maybe so.

You haven't heard that Bill has shelves and shelves of books that he studies. He studies his heart out, from what I've read or heard on his website or FB feed from people that know him.

I don't think it's a lack of knowledge at all. But maybe I shouldn't be putting my nose in where it doesn't belong. Except it is IMO that he indeed does study so much. 

Robert, do you study from many sources or listen to any podcasts that may not promote Mormonism in a certain light? 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You haven't heard that Bill has shelves and shelves of books that he studies. He studies his heart out, from what I've read or heard on his website or FB feed from people that know him.

I don't think it's a lack of knowledge at all. But maybe I shouldn't be putting my nose in where it doesn't belong. Except it is IMO that he indeed does study so much. 

Robert, do you study from many sources or listen to any podcasts that may not promote Mormonism in a certain light? 

I have spent half my life listening to and respecting non-Mormons, some of whom are blatant anti-Mormons.  I have paid close attention to what they say and do.  I did not grow up in Utah, and did not live my life in communities insulated from other viewpoints.

You can take me to task any time you like, Tacenda.  I don't mind.

My judgments on Bill Reel's understanding of the issues is based what he actually says here on this board.

[DBMormon]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The shoe is actually on the other foot, Bill.  In addition to James White being a rabid anti-Mormon, both White and Spong are well-known members of moribund christianity.  The only thing we can really learn from either one is how not to be an authentic Christian.  They are both well-intentioned, but their churches are collapsing and disappearing.  If we adopt their beliefs, we will likewise fail and disappear.  On the other hand, they might well learn something from the LDS tradition about what successful Christianity looks like.  They probably won't.

Reminds me of the late, great Jewish scholar at Berkeley, Jacob Milgrom.  He made it very clear that homosexuality is forbidden to Jews, but not to non-Jews.  If he is correct, then the discussion is over.  Perhaps, however, some other viewpoint is correct.  How can we be sure?  Ultimately, we must follow our individual conscience in all such matters.  That is the best we can do.  In debate on any issues, we should adopt irenic instead of polemic methods.

The problem you seem to have, and which is made clear in your comments on this board, is that you do not understand the issues, and you don't seem interested in informing yourself.  You are like the guy who wants to practice brain surgery, but who refuses to study medicine and neurosurgery for the many years required before one is prepared to perform brain surgery.  Because I am willing to do you the favor of telling you the truth about your lack of knowledge (which I do not assume, but judge directly on the basis of what you write now and in the past), you claim that I am being rude and uncordial.  Maybe so.

Na na na boo boo.  Feel free to turn spong and white into your own analogy.  I agree that both folks are from churches that have issues.   What church doesn't? But to say the Episcopalian church and evangelical church are dying is silly.  Losing members... fine.  But again I don't think we want to measure a church' truth or goodness from growth

i can see while you think you have me figured out, that sadly I seemed to have assumed wrongly about you.

Sorry to have somehow gotten under your skin.  

good day. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by DBMormon

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Na na na boo boo.  Feel free to turn spong and white into your own analogy.  I agree that both folks are from churches that have issues.   What church doesn't? But to say the Episcopalian church and evangelical church are dying is silly.  Losing members... fine.  But again I don't think we want to measure a church' truth or goodness from growth

....................................................

It is certainly true that there are many good people in those dying churches, but they will be able to do no good for anyone when they just melt away.  It is not silly to own up to reality.

[DBMormon]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You haven't heard that Bill has shelves and shelves of books that he studies. He studies his heart out, from what I've read or heard on his website or FB feed from people that know him.

I don't think it's a lack of knowledge at all. But maybe I shouldn't be putting my nose in where it doesn't belong. Except it is IMO that he indeed does study so much. 

Robert, do you study from many sources or listen to any podcasts that may not promote Mormonism in a certain light? 

 

Thank you tacenda.  No amount of evidence will convince Robert I am informed.  He has already made up his mind.   I appreciate your sharing that many respect what I do and what I have to say..... that means a lot to me and I am glad you did.