Scott Gordon...Apologetic? Apostate? or Apologetic-Apostate.

[_Buffalo]

Yet the much of the ancient text survives and the question remains unanswered.

What ancient text? None of Moses' personal writings survive.

[_SteelHead]

For the Book of Moses in the pogp? What ancient text/manuscript?

[_bcspace]

What ancient text?

Compare with Genesis.

None of Moses' personal writings survive.

I never claimed it did.

[_Buffalo]

What ancient text?

Compare with Genesis.

None of Moses' personal writings survive.

I never claimed it did.

Then you should strike your post from the record. It's irrelevant. Modern revelation shows that the flood was literal and global.

[_consiglieri]

My main beef with his article is that he does not advance an alternate explanation(s).

You do understand that is where the trouble starts . . . ?

[_Mike Reed]

My main beef with his article is that he does not advance an alternate explanation(s).

Have you read Michael W. Homer's "Why then introduce them into our inner temple?"" The Masonic Influence on Mormon Denial of Priesthood Ordination to African American Men (JWHA Journal, 2006)?

[_Blixa]

My main beef with his article is that he does not advance an alternate explanation(s).

Have you read Michael W. Homer's "Why then introduce them into our inner temple?"" The Masonic Influence on Mormon Denial of Priesthood Ordination to African American Men (JWHA Journal, 2006)?

Thanks, Mike.

[_bcspace]

I never claimed it did.

Then you should strike your post from the record.

Why? The Bible is an ancient text.

[_moksha]

Then you should strike your post from the record. It's irrelevant. Modern revelation shows that the flood was literal and global.

Wanting a literal flood and for Scott Gordon to continue with an excuse for the Priesthood ban, is like continuing to weave the tangled web. Not knowing the answer is preferable to more tangles.

Admitting that a spider web is yucky when it gets in your hair is even more preferable and the Priesthood ban is definitely stuck in our hair.

[_ldsfaqs]

I agree.... Scott made a serious error in judgment in "condemning" the example from the scriptures. It's a perfectly reasonable example to explain how God works and that he's done similar things in the past.

While the Priesthood ban isn't exactly the same as other bans of the Bible, it's certainly similar enough.
One reason it's a bad argument is because Polygamy and other things are also compared to the Bible, while Mormon Polygamy isn't the same either as Biblical Polygamy. Is Scott going to next condemn the usage of examples of Biblical Polygamy to "help" explain Mormon Polygamy and Plural Marriage?

Scott's a great guy and good apologist, but he clearly didn't think this through when he decided to be critical of it.