Themis wrote:I suspect the papyri being found and the Book of Abraham issue may have done even more damage to his testimony.
Reference please.
Themis wrote:I suspect the papyri being found and the Book of Abraham issue may have done even more damage to his testimony.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Themis wrote:I suspect the papyri being found and the Book of Abraham issue may have done even more damage to his testimony.
Reference please.
Themis wrote:I am only putting forth a personal suspicion based on more own experience with the Book of Abraham issue and what little I remember of his statements..
Mittens wrote:if Mormon god was omniscience like Christian God there wouldn't be so much redacting and changing in Mormonism. Just think Christianity is almost 2000 years old and hasn't been changed like Mormonism which got started around 1830s
son of Ishmael wrote:Mittens wrote:if Mormon god was omniscience like Christian God there wouldn't be so much redacting and changing in Mormonism. Just think Christianity is almost 2000 years old and hasn't been changed like Mormonism which got started around 1830s
You have got to be kidding right?
Yahoo Bot wrote:
Ferguson was still naïve and very uninformed about Church doctrine. But, then, those who worship at Dr. Sorenson's altar, or Meldrum's for that matter, are equally uninformed.
Themis wrote:Yahoo Bot wrote:
Ferguson was still naïve and very uninformed about Church doctrine. But, then, those who worship at Dr. Sorenson's altar, or Meldrum's for that matter, are equally uninformed.
I would say the same as I said to Robert F Smith. Instead of attacking the man deal with what he said and show why you think it is wrong. I think these men have a far better understanding of church doctrine then you want to give them credit for.
Themis wrote:Robert F Smith wrote:Ferguson may very well have been a very smart lawyer, but I have never seen any evidence to indicate that he had the foggiest idea what archeology was or what it could be used for. I never met the man
So you were being unfair in attacking him instead of dealing with what he said and why you think it is wrong.
Won't be the first time that someone has done something for the wrong reasons.
He didn't do it for the wrong reasons. Nothing wrong with wanting to find evidence about a book he believed at the time was about a real people. I suspect while he saw the lack of evidence as well as mounting against the Book of Mormon as very troubling, I suspect the papyri being found and the Book of Abraham issue may have done even more damage to his testimony. The Book of Abraham really is the smoking gun, and when you look at the whole picture it only gets worse.
Robert F Smith wrote:His arrogance prevented him from accepting criticism -- he wasn't teachable. Like telling the king that he has no clothes on!! What I received from him in 1975 on the Book of Mormon was so sophomoric that knew that he was beyond help. He was impervious to rationale discussion.
Funding the NWAF under the childish belief that such a secular enterprise would result in finding, say, Arnold Friberg's Norway in America is probably as big a misdirection as anyone could pursue. Had he understood anthropology (and archeology), he would never have made such silly assumptions.
The same applies to his irrational expectations and understanding of the Book of Abraham.
They say that "the road to Hell is lined with good intentions."