Consig & Ray,
I'm making the large assumption that you are active Believing Mormons when I ask this question; how do you rationalise that the Church leaders have stated that it's either ALL true or it's a COMPLETE fraud?
Mr Peterson provides archeological proof of the B ofM...?
-
_jon
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1464
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:15 am
Re: Mr Peterson provides archeological proof of the B ofM...?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
-
_RayAgostini
Re: Mr Peterson provides archeological proof of the B ofM...?
jon wrote:Consig & Ray,
I'm making the large assumption that you are active Believing Mormons when I ask this question; how do you rationalise that the Church leaders have stated that it's either ALL true or it's a COMPLETE fraud?
jon, in my case that is a wrong assumption. Call me a "Whitmerite" if you like; it probably fits better. What the Church leaders say or think isn't necessarily "gospel", in my opinion. A year ago I discussed the issue regarding a "reconciling a fictional Book of Mormon" on The Millennial Star blog. Make of that what you will.
ETA: Actually it starts Here.
-
_Aristotle Smith
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:38 pm
Re: Mr Peterson provides archeological proof of the B ofM...?
For me to not think the Book of Mormon is of 19th century origin I would need an apologist to do the following:
1) Pick either tight translation or loose translation as the operating translation method, and stick with it consistently.
2) With #1 in mind show some markers of ancientness and be able to explain the anachronisms.
3) Show how reading it as an ancient document makes the text richer and more understandable than reading it as a 19th century document.
Most apologists can't make it past #1. The only way they accomplish #2 is to blatantly ignore #1. I've yet to see someone pull off #3.
1) Pick either tight translation or loose translation as the operating translation method, and stick with it consistently.
2) With #1 in mind show some markers of ancientness and be able to explain the anachronisms.
3) Show how reading it as an ancient document makes the text richer and more understandable than reading it as a 19th century document.
Most apologists can't make it past #1. The only way they accomplish #2 is to blatantly ignore #1. I've yet to see someone pull off #3.