This question causes me to think that you think that all the thinking has been done or was done…period. No questions asked. No opportunity for further light and knowledge.
Sheesh, it took the early brethren quite a while to come together and work out the kinks on a number of things.
That causes a problem for you. I get it.
Regards,
MG
You haven't answered the question I asked. Is your reference a Church-approved source? Yes, or No?
You haven't answered the question I asked. Is your reference a Church-approved source? Yes, or No?
I did answer.
Regards,
MG
I’m struggling to determine what your answer says. Was your answer Yes, or No?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I’m struggling to determine what your answer says. Was your answer Yes, or No?
Go back. Read again. You’re like some of the folks/questioners in the Congressional Sub Committee hearings.
Please! Just answer yes or no!
When they get answers that go beyond that, they get bothered and upset. Even flustered.
Regards
MG
Done that. Can’t tell what you’re saying. Your source is either a Church-approved source, or it isn’t. It’s like you’re either pregnant or you’re not pregnant. There’s no third option.
So is it a Church approved source?
Or is it not a Church approved source?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
You haven't answered the question I asked. Is your reference a Church-approved source? Yes, or No?
I think it is published by Signature Books. I don’t know what the relationship is between that publisher and the church.
It would be interesting to know if any of the Signature Books publications exist in the home library of any of the General Authorities. Signature has published some good stuff over the years.
Have you actually read Charlie Harrell’s book?
If so, what was your response?
Regards,
MG
When you say “church approved” what are you saying? To the best of my knowledge there are many book that are published that are not “church approved”.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up?
Have you read the book?
Using large letters since you seem to be better at asking questions than answering them.
I think it is published by Signature Books. I don’t know what the relationship is between that publisher and the church.
It would be interesting to know if any of the Signature Books publications exist in the home library of any of the General Authorities. Signature has published some good stuff over the years.
Have you actually read Charlie Harrell’s book?
If so, what was your response?
Regards,
MG
When you say “church approved” what are you saying? To the best of my knowledge there are many book that are published that are not “church approved”.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up?
Have you read the book?
Using large letters since you seem to be better at asking questions than answering them.
When you say “church approved” what are you saying? To the best of my knowledge there are many book that are published that are not “church approved”.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up?
Have you read the book?
Using large letters since you seem to be better at asking questions than answering them.
Regards,
MG
bump-Have you read it?
All this hullabaloo. Just wondering.
Regards,
MG
Assuming you’ve actually read it. What are some of the specific things within it that you find compelling?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
A number of books produced by the publisher related to Mormon history have been considered controversial. Some authors view this as "quality liberal thinking on controversial LDS topics."[2] Terryl Givens states that the publisher is "the main vehicle for publications that challenge the borders of Mormon orthodoxy."[3]
Signature Books is sometimes at odds with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), an organization of Mormon scholars and apologists which promotes orthodox Mormon historical scholarship. Author Simon Southerton referred to Signature Books as "a perennial thorn in the side of FARMS."[4] One example was Signature Book's publication of Grant H. Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. The publication of this book immediately resulted in five negative book reviews by FARMS.[5]
So it sounds like Signature Books is on the up and up.
A number of books produced by the publisher related to Mormon history have been considered controversial. Some authors view this as "quality liberal thinking on controversial LDS topics."[2] Terryl Givens states that the publisher is "the main vehicle for publications that challenge the borders of Mormon orthodoxy."[3]
Signature Books is sometimes at odds with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), an organization of Mormon scholars and apologists which promotes orthodox Mormon historical scholarship. Author Simon Southerton referred to Signature Books as "a perennial thorn in the side of FARMS."[4] One example was Signature Book's publication of Grant H. Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. The publication of this book immediately resulted in five negative book reviews by FARMS.[5]
So it sounds like Signature Books is on the up and up.
It’s more or less a mixed bag. You might find a book you’re interested in. An active and believing member of the church would also find a book they might be interested in.
