Page 1 of 1
Repent, thou blind liars!
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:31 am
by _CaliforniaKid
From MADB:
Cold Steel wrote:Critics of Nostradamas will never see anything in the quatrains he wrote, and those who do will never understand why they won’t. And such also is the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The main difference is, the things Joseph Smith could not have known does not fall into that category. People who say that the Book of Mormon shows us nothing to convince us of its authenticity are blind, misleading or out-in-out duplicitous—and sometimes a combination of all three.
...
Most honest people can say, well, I can’t explain it, but I don’t believe it. (Sort of like the compelling accounts of people who claim to be reincarnations of historical personalities.) But, again, the archeological evidence and consistencies of the Book of Mormon are unassailable. One may choose not to believe the Book of Mormon even in light of such consistencies, but to deny them is another matter altogether.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 34653&st=0
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:48 am
by _Roger Morrison
Tried the link and was told "could not be had," or something like that... Roger
Re: Repent, thou blind liars!
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:55 am
by _Tarski
CaliforniaKid wrote:From MADB:
Cold Steel wrote:Critics of Nostradamas will never see anything in the quatrains he wrote, and those who do will never understand why they won’t. And such also is the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The main difference is, the things Joseph Smith could not have known does not fall into that category. People who say that the Book of Mormon shows us nothing to convince us of its authenticity are blind, misleading or out-in-out duplicitous—and sometimes a combination of all three.
...
Most honest people can say, well, I can’t explain it, but I don’t believe it. (Sort of like the compelling accounts of people who claim to be reincarnations of historical personalities.) But, again, the archeological evidence and consistencies of the Book of Mormon are unassailable. One may choose not to believe the Book of Mormon even in light of such consistencies, but to deny them is another matter altogether.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 34653&st=0
It is telling that this "cold steel" guy compares Joseph Smith with Nostradamus. Nostradamus is an obvious fraud.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:57 am
by _beastie
People who assert that the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon is "unassailable" are speaking from profound ignorance.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:39 am
by _CaliforniaKid
Roger Morrison wrote:Tried the link and was told "could not be had," or something like that... Roger
You have to cut-and-paste it. MADB blocks link-clicks from MDB.
It is telling that this "cold steel" guy compares Joseph Smith with Nostradamus. Nostradamus is an obvious fraud.
I think his point is that they're
not the same, because there's little evidence for Nostradamus but there are tons of things Joseph could not have known that you'd have to be blind or a liar to dismiss.
Re: Repent, thou blind liars!
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:54 am
by _richardMdBorn
CaliforniaKid wrote:From MADB:
Cold Steel wrote:Critics of Nostradamas will never see anything in the quatrains he wrote, and those who do will never understand why they won’t. And such also is the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The main difference is, the things Joseph Smith could not have known does not fall into that category. People who say that the Book of Mormon shows us nothing to convince us of its authenticity are blind, misleading or out-in-out duplicitous—and sometimes a combination of all three.
...
Most honest people can say, well, I can’t explain it, but I don’t believe it. (Sort of like the compelling accounts of people who claim to be reincarnations of historical personalities.) But, again, the archeological evidence and consistencies of the Book of Mormon are unassailable. One may choose not to believe the Book of Mormon even in light of such consistencies, but to deny them is another matter altogether.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 34653&st=0
Cold Steel continues to repeat wrong statements about the Millerites after I refuted them, so why am I not surprised.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:58 am
by _The Dude
That Cold Steel fella is a real piece of work. He's what you might call a "fire and brimstone" Mormon after the pattern of Brigham Young. He'd make a good Danite.