DiscussMormonism.com

Thanks for using Latin.

That is all.

Thanks for the review, Reverend. I think I'll give it a pass. The take home may be that whatever makes a person a "true believer" persists through a change of belief. I was struck by the way his desire to be known as a revealer of mysteries has remained constant throughout. I guess he joins the ran...

I am inclined to agree with Jersey. One can go overboard with humility and move into a new kind of pride. God can attend to and love all Creation in ways we are incapable of grasping with our finite minds. Being open to the possibility of that love and care is an expression of faith. My heart goes o...

Probably the friendliest accurate take on this book is a review I read on Amazon.com: If you loved Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code and your favorite chapter of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins was "Moroni and The Golden Pot," you'll enjoy this whodunnit spanning nearly three centuries and two contin...

One of the closest possible links between John Smith and Kircher is the appearance of Kircher’s work in a list of books in the Dartmouth library from about 1850. So it may be that Kircher’s work was available for John Smith to read and maybe he read it. Maybe. That mention in Bibliotheca Sacra and ...

Thank you for the "return and report." I generally don't like to prejudge a book based on interviews an author has where the author cannot fully explain their arguments and evidence. Asking them to explain all of that would eliminate the need to buy the book. Your description is about what I would ...

I just finished listening to Mormonism live with Nelson. He claims it is the most parsimonious theory. His statistical opionion is that Joseph only had about 5% authorship with Rigdon and Spalding carrying the majority? That seems tenuous especially with the scant evidence that Rigdon recieved the ...

Fence Sitter wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 4:31 pm

I look at it this way.
We have the Book of Mormon.
It was clearly created in the 19th century in a very specific 19th century milieu.
How exactly that was done is irrelevant to the fact it was a 19th century production.

Yes, it is definitely a 19th-century book.

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 9:07 am

So, it's good for people to continue believing in Mormonism?

I would say that most consequential life decisions are better made when they are undertaken with good information backing them up.

So, started to read the book today, and, again, I am unimpressed. Sure, it is fun, but it basically raises interesting coincidences and possibilities. There is nothing that convincingly connects Kircher, Monmaur, John Smith, and Joseph Smith. I don’t see that apologists have much to worry about here...