bcspace wrote: That's nothing compared to today's bass ackwards thinking of most LDS critics who often have no real refernces or are out of context or who ignore evidence.
I would like everyone to know that this post from the person who insists that LDS doctrine is compatible with evolution and that the Church did not officially teach that Adam is Heavenly Father has caused my irony meter to explode.
I would also like to point out that bcspace is the person who believes that the phrase 'no death before the fall' actually means 'lots and lots of death for billions of years as lifeforms evolved, then a short period of time when there was no death, and then the fall of Adam, which caused death to start up again.'
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
Chap wrote:(For goodness' sake ... I wish he had stuck with Eusebius ...)
If he had stuck with Eusebius' defense, would that have provided an answer to 6th Century BC Jewish Chrisitianity?
I have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book.
(Warning: that sentence above may be a joke. Getting it seriously may cause severe damage.)
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei