Peterson wrote:Mercifully, we're talking about a very, very small population.
Consistent with the interest generated by the Book of Mormon historicity works of FARMS.
I simply have to mention a very small population with a seriously skewed relationship to reality, et voilà! Pal Joey answers the call, beating his tiny drum!
I've found perhaps a couple of them to be substantively empty especially when it's apparent the reviewer has something to gain by holding a differing opinion (such as the author of a competing Book of Mormon LGT). The rest seemed pretty good.
I've only seen a few of Scratch's commentary on the FARMS review but have found them lacking substance, concentrating instead on criticizing style and perceived innuendo.
bcspace wrote:... concentrating instead on criticizing style and perceived innuendo.
I thought the Review's style was perceived innuendo... at least according to Scratch.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
I thought the Review's style was perceived innuendo... at least according to Scratch.
According to him. But he doesn't seem to actually delve into the substance of the articles to tell us what facts/opinions presented might be wrong.
He delves into the substance of the article, if the substance of the article is innuendo.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.