^ highlighting mine_KevinSim wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:06 pmI don't detach my "god from the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham"; I've read both books several times, and fully believe both books give great descriptions of the nature of God.sock puppet wrote: Kevin,
I think your defending tools are not classical apologetic ones. You do not dress your arguments up in publications that look like they are serious scholarly, academic journals to give an air of having passed real peer-review scrutiny.
If you detach your god from the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, then what is left of god "as described by the LDS Church" that is not a confused being and otherwise run of the mill Christian dogma?
Laugh at those two books all you want; I see no reason why such laughter should keep me from believing they're divinely inspired.sock puppet wrote:The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are laughable in light of what they and the LDS Church proclaim them to be.
Perhaps you're familiar with parts of the Do&Co that I'm not, but in my opinion parts of the Do&Co like Section 93 teach of a radically different type of deity than traditional Christianity does. Why do you call that deity a "very, very confused entity"?sock puppet wrote:The god "as described by the LDS Church" as evidenced, say, by the D&C seems to be very, very confused entity.
Are there callings for Mormon retirees to serve Internet missions? Clearly KS is proselytizing since he has no coherent philosophy, so he’s dependent on canon to define what a god is and why it do what it do.
- Doc