Unfortunately, in my opinion, when we get TOO wrapped up in the historical conundrums that arise as we study the Book of Mormon we can lose sight of the actual purpose the Book of Mormon was brought to light. To testify of Jesus Christ in a world that has in many ways moved away from Him. Teachings concerning the Atonement, faith, etc. only ADD to the knowledge necessary to build faith unto salvation.
Regards,
MG
Nope, you can find all of the necessary messages from Jesus in the Bible. The fictional history of a people that now aren’t claimed to be the ancestors of anybody adds nothing.
Well said. I could not agree more.
There are going to be a LOT of surprised Mormons if Christianity turns out to be true.
MG, I think it is a good addition that you posted this material. It is obviously important to you; that can be respected. It can be respected while noting that it does not present any findings. It presents speculation as to why there are no findings. How persuasive a person finds those depends on reading the Book of Mormon. Your source does not have specialized expertise on that but can read like the rest of us here.
As with a number of other 'issues' within Mormonism the jury is out on DNA. And I agree with you, it is within the Book of Mormon itself that one determines whether or not it holds water. Gordon B. Hinckley said as much.
Regards,
MG
Well, he also said “Mormon means ‘more good’” and loved the word Mormon. Mormon this, Mormon that. Meet the Mormons. Mormon dot org. Mormon Helping Hands. The Mormon Moment, etc.
But now the current centenarian fool running the hedge fund/real-estate holding company that masquerades as a religion says that ole Gordo was doing Satan’s work with all that “Mormon” stuff. Why are you quoting a guy that Rusty Nelson has thrown under the bus?
"Praise be to Allah"--President Donald J. Trump
"I love the inflation"--President Donald J. Trump
Then isn’t he, at the very least, worth you taking the time to post a specific quote from him relevant to the topic of the thread, to show why you are so impressed by his “prowess” on this topic?
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.
MG 2.0, Kevin Barney ignores the elephant in the room: Although he and other intellectually bankrupt Mopologists have redefined the Book of Mormon to be a lineage history, not a single apostle or prophet has defined it that way--nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. The book repeatedly talks about promises made to Nephi's "seed" and "the seed of [Nephi's] brethren." This neither implicitly nor explicitly includes anyone else, much less the gentiles surrounding them who aren't even of the House of Israel.
Even in the Doctrine and Covenants we read where people are called to go on missions to this or that place, which is near "the borders of the Nephites," later changed to "the borders of the Lamanites."
So, Kevin Barney and the rest of the Mopologetic clowns have destroyed the Book of Mormon in order to save it.
.
"When the Mormon God requires a PR crisis to act moral, we've clearly outgrown him."
MG 2.0, Kevin Barney ignores the elephant in the room: Although he and other intellectually bankrupt Mopologists have redefined the Book of Mormon to be a lineage history, not a single apostle or prophet has defined it that way--nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. The book repeatedly talks about promises made to Nephi's "seed" and "the seed of [Nephi's] brethren." This neither implicitly nor explicitly includes anyone else, much less the gentiles surrounding them who aren't even of the House of Israel.
Even in the Doctrine and Covenants we read where people are called to go on missions to this or that place, which is near "the borders of the Nephites," later changed to "the borders of the Lamanites."
So, Kevin Barney and the rest of the Mopologetic clowns have destroyed the Book of Mormon in order to save it.
He has recognized the implications of the science of DNA studies. So has the church. There are examples in the Book of Mormon of lineage groups merging. Mulekites and Nephites under King Mosiah for example. If you hold to the hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon you will, of course, look at Kevin Barney and other LDS folks that have been able to look at things with a more nuanced view as "clowns".
Nope, you can find all of the necessary messages from Jesus in the Bible. The fictional history of a people that now aren’t claimed to be the ancestors of anybody adds nothing.
Well said. I could not agree more.
There are going to be a LOT of surprised Mormons if Christianity turns out to be true.
There are going to be a LOT of surprised Mormons if Christianity turns out to be true.
Which branch of Christianity?
Regards,
MG
If any of the non-Mormon ones turn out to be true I think there will be a lot of silly looking Mormons. Russel Nelson will be especially surprised to learn he won’t be practicing bigamy in the afterlife.
If any of the non-Mormon ones turn out to be true I think there will be a lot of silly looking Mormons. Russel Nelson will be especially surprised to learn he won’t be practicing bigamy in the afterlife.
MG 2.0, Kevin Barney ignores the elephant in the room: Although he and other intellectually bankrupt Mopologists have redefined the Book of Mormon to be a lineage history, not a single apostle or prophet has defined it that way--nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. The book repeatedly talks about promises made to Nephi's "seed" and "the seed of [Nephi's] brethren." This neither implicitly nor explicitly includes anyone else, much less the gentiles surrounding them who aren't even of the House of Israel.
Even in the Doctrine and Covenants we read where people are called to go on missions to this or that place, which is near "the borders of the Nephites," later changed to "the borders of the Lamanites."
So, Kevin Barney and the rest of the Mopologetic clowns have destroyed the Book of Mormon in order to save it.
He has recognized the implications of the science of DNA studies. So has the church. There are examples in the Book of Mormon of lineage groups merging. Mulekites and Nephites under King Mosiah for example. If you hold to the hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon you will, of course, look at Kevin Barney and other LDS folks that have been able to look at things with a more nuanced view as "clowns".
Regards,
MG
Quote something from him that demonstrates he has recognised the implications of the science of DNA studies, but which doesn’t undermine the claims made about the Book of Mormon internally, and by the Church.
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.
If any of the non-Mormon ones turn out to be true I think there will be a lot of silly looking Mormons. Russel Nelson will be especially surprised to learn he won’t be practicing bigamy in the afterlife.
But which one? They can't all be true, can they?
Regards,
MG
Only God is completely true. How can a church be True?
Perhaps you want a clearer question. Surely you do not mean the group who never makes a mistake.
Perhaps you mean the group God cares about. That may well mean the whole human race.
Look we all know Mormons mean the group with saving ordinances. If a person thinks faith and response to God's goodness is the only ordinance, then the true church is scattered about the whole earth.
Last edited by huckelberry on Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
