"definitive Conclusion By Logic"

[Guest TheProudDuck]

From President Faust's essay, "The Keystone of our Religion" in the last Ensign:

References to teachings in the Old Testament and the New Testament are so numerous and overwhelming throughout the Book of Mormon that one can come to a definitive conclusion by logic that a human intellect could not have conceived of them all.

Is such a "definitive conclusion" in fact compelled by logic?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I remember reading this article a few weeks ago and thinking that President Faust has no faith in the intellectual potential of human beings to write very complex literature. How sad!

[Ray]

He didn’t say such a conclusion was compelled by logic. He said that a person can conclude by logic [alone] that a human intellect could not have conceived of them all.

I think President Faust was referring to all of the teachings quoted in the Book of Mormon that come from the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. I can now recall thinking the same thing myself, as I have read the Book of Mormon. I think President Faust may have been saying that considering the short period of time that the Prophet Joseph had to translate the Book of Mormon, it is illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith wrote it himself, without divine guidance, as some people claim.

I'll have to read that article to better understand what he was talking about.

[Guest antishock82003]

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about. Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2004, 05:03 PM

From President Faust's essay, "The Keystone of our Religion" in the last Ensign:

References to teachings in the Old Testament and the New Testament are so numerous and overwhelming throughout the Book of Mormon that one can come to a definitive conclusion by logic that a human intellect could not have conceived of them all.

Is such a "definitive conclusion" in fact compelled by logic?

I think a person could come to that conclusion by logic. Another person may logically conclude that Joseph Smith plagiarized large portions of the Bible (which he had been reading for at least 10 years at the time) for his text. Two different people, two different logical conclusions. He fails to mention all the variables though. Now, if the Bible were not available to Joseph Smith at the time--he'd have a more convincing argument.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 28 2004, 05:49 PM

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about.  Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

Amazingly enough, that subject hadn't even occurred to me when I wrote the post. Looking back, it certainly is one way of looking at it -- a case of making lemonade out of the lemons you're given.

Ray and Curvette -- Maybe President Faust was only saying that the idea that no human intellect could have thought of all the correlations between the Bible and the Book of Mormon was one of several logical conclusions a person could reach. I guess I focused on the words "definitive" and "logic." I read that as meaning that the logic he mentioned was so "definitive" that a person couldn't reasonably arrive at another conclusion. With pure logic (as opposed to rational argument, which is a little different), you get from A to B with the precision and inescapability of a mathematical proof (dang, how I used to hate those!). In other words, pure logic says, "If A=B and B=C, then A must equal C," not "If A=B and B=C, then the idea of A equaling C is one of many equally reasonable conclusions."

In fact, I would think Paul O. would agree with me here in wondering whether President Faust's apparent belief that the Book of Mormon's truth is accessible by logic alone (although he does say that a spiritual witness is a more reliable and thorough confirmation of its truth) doesn't conflict with the idea that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be known by the exercise of faith.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2004, 08:04 PM

Amazingly enough, that subject hadn't even occurred to me when I wrote the post. Looking back, it certainly is one way of looking at it -- a case of making lemonade out of the lemons you're given.

I don't think your seeing the whole logic behind it.

Given what is known about the translation process, it is logical to conclude that a human mind could not come up with the "references" that are in the BoM.

Now, if we assume that the witnesses to the translation process were in on it and conspiring with JS to misrepresent the process, or that JS was so clever that he duped them (for example: pre-wrote the BoM and hid the text in his hat and then invented a light source - perhaps the Jaredite barge stones - and simply read the notes off to the scribe) then the conclusion would be different. Say, I once read that JS was in on the JFK assasination. Wait a minute, I got Oliver Stone on the other line....

[Ray]

Even if Joseph Smith started writing the Book of Mormon when he was 14, and even if he had the help of every person you can imagine who might have associated with him [other than persons in heaven], it still seems illogical to me to conclude that the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone. In my opinion, and in what seems to be President Faust’s opinion, anyone who assumes the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone is not thinking logically, and has not given the teachings within the Book of Mormon enough consideration.

I still haven't read that article, but hopefully President Faust also touches upon the idea that a definitive conclusion reached by logic alone is NOT what most people refer to as a testimony. As convincing as logic may be, a person should still seek a testimony from the Holy Ghost to confirm that their logic and reasoning is true.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 29 2004, 09:32 AM

Even if Joseph Smith started writing the Book of Mormon when he was 14, and even if he had the help of every person you can imagine who might have associated with him [other than persons in heaven], it still seems illogical to me to conclude that the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone. In my opinion, and in what seems to be President Faust’s opinion, anyone who assumes the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone is not thinking logically, and has not given the teachings within the Book of Mormon enough consideration.

.

I think we'd better just leave logic out of our Book of Mormon studies. The faith thing works a lot better.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 29 2004, 09:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 29 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Jan 29 2004, 09:32 AM

Even if Joseph Smith started writing the Book of Mormon when he was 14, and even if he had the help of every person you can imagine who might have associated with him [other than persons in heaven], it still seems illogical to me to conclude that the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone.  In my opinion, and in what seems to be President Faust’s opinion, anyone who assumes the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone is not thinking logically, and has not given the teachings within the Book of Mormon enough consideration.

.

I think we'd better just leave logic out of our Book of Mormon studies. The faith thing works a lot better.

I agree. I'm guessing that you probably wrote this before I edited in my second paragraph. :)

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 29 2004, 09:32 AM

Even if Joseph Smith started writing the Book of Mormon when he was 14, and even if he had the help of every person you can imagine who might have associated with him [other than persons in heaven], it still seems illogical to me to conclude that the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone.  In my opinion, and in what seems to be President Faust’s opinion, anyone who assumes the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone is not thinking logically, and has not given the teachings within the Book of Mormon enough consideration.

I still haven't read that article, but hopefully President Faust also touches upon the idea that a definitive conclusion reached by logic alone is NOT what most people refer to as a testimony.  As convincing as logic may be, a person should still seek a testimony from the Holy Ghost to confirm that their logic and reasoning is true.

Weeeeeell, there IS a reason why the BoM would have had over 3000 grammar errors in it originally...even with a supposed english teacher assisting in its "translation". Also, correct me if I'm wrong but some minor word edits really changed some doctrinal issues, too (triniatrian vs. non-trinitarian).

I think lifting huge portions of the Bible would help in the writing process.

I think using someone else's basic premise for a story would ease the creative juices.

I think JS used a whole lot more time than the Church wants us to believe in writing this story, and he had help.

I think the BoM was originally intended to be a novel, and the rights were never sold. Which tells me that the story wasn't that great. Of course, the last little tidbit is debatable. It's not good enough to be sold as a novel, however it's apparently good enough to dupe millions into believing its a sacred tome. Go figure. Makes me wonder if Lord of the Rings had been marketed differently what kind of a unique English/American religion we'd have today...

I think being super repetive in both wording (I thought space was limited..) and theme helps in the writing process.

I think not being well-versed in Jewish customs really hurt the "logical" assumption of this book's greatness.

Anyways, I just think Mr. Faust, logically speaking, is opining to his core membership...the tithe payer. He's just reaffirming in their minds the "correctness" of their faith, and reassuring them that their investment in time, energy, money, and devotion is not wasted on a fradulent book...logically speaking. He's essentially the CEO reporting to his stockholders the value of their stock...logically speaking.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

In my opinion, and in what seems to be President Faust’s opinion, anyone who assumes the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone is not thinking logically, and has not given the teachings within the Book of Mormon enough consideration.

I tend to be uncomfortable defending my faith using the same arguments Muslims use to defend theirs (i.e. the Koran is so complex that no human mind could have invented it). Look where it's gotten them.

[srm]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 28 2004, 05:49 PM

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about. Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

How many are there in 'numerous plagiarisms'? Could you list them?

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by srm+Jan 29 2004, 10:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Jan 29 2004, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Jan 28 2004, 05:49 PM

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about.  Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

How many are there in 'numerous plagiarisms'? Could you list them?

Better yet, because they're so numerous, I'lll just provide you with a link. If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism. If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

Don't forget that huge portions of Isaiah were included under the guise of the Brass Plates.

[Ray]

Anyways, I just think Mr. Faust, logically speaking, is opining to his core membership...the tithe payer. He's just reaffirming in their minds the "correctness" of their faith, and reassuring them that their investment in time, energy, money, and devotion is not wasted on a fradulent book...logically speaking. He's essentially the CEO reporting to his stockholders the value of their stock...logically speaking.

Laman and Lemuel thought their father Lehi and their brother Nephi were doing the same thing…that is, trying to persuade them to believe their teachings because they wanted them to be in subjection to them, so that they could get their investments of time, energy, money, and devotion and would be dependent upon them, their father and brother, as their leaders and teachers of truth.

You can find other references in the Book of Mormon about other people who had this belief too. People who believed that the teachings of prophets was merely the teachings of men. People who believed true prophets were merely people who had their own agenda, wanting to bring people in subjection to them.

People who thought this way were said to be people who were hardening their hearts against the truth, preferring to continue their false notions and beliefs instead of opening their hearts to the possibility the teachings were inspired by God, and that the people who taught those things were truly prophets of God.

You’re not much different from those disbelievers in the Book of Mormon, Antishock. You may believe that examples of people like that were written into the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith and others to convince people who read the Book of Mormon that the record is true, but in doing so you’re only hardening your own heart. Someday you will know that the Book of Mormon is truly what it claims to be, and hopefully that day will come before the day when you’re standing in front of Christ and trying to explain to him why you didn’t accept the testimony of His prophets.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -srm@Jan 29 2004, 10:44 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Jan 28 2004, 05:49 PM

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about.  Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

How many are there in 'numerous plagiarisms'? Could you list them?

Better yet, because they're so numerous, I'lll just provide you with a link. If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism. If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

Don't forget that huge portions of Isaiah were included under the guise of the Brass Plates.

So, the portions that are quoted from Isaiah aside, are you suggesting that God cannot reveal similar concepts to different people on different parts of the planet? Are you saying that once one person thinks of something, that becomes the end-all of anyone else having a similar thought without it being considered a plageurism?

I think that is interesting. Does that mean that the only reason you doubted your faith and chose to rely on "logic" is because someone else first doubted it? (Because you are not the first to think that thought, you couldn't have come up with it on your own.)

That is the logical conclusion of your thesis, you know.

[Ray]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -srm@Jan 29 2004, 10:44 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Jan 28 2004, 05:49 PM

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about.  Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

How many are there in 'numerous plagiarisms'? Could you list them?

Better yet, because they're so numerous, I'lll just provide you with a link. If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism. If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

Don't forget that huge portions of Isaiah were included under the guise of the Brass Plates.

I’ll repeat what I said before, expounding a little bit more.

In my opinion, and in what seems to be President Faust’s opinion, anyone who assumes the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone is not thinking logically, and has not given the teachings within the Book of Mormon enough consideration.

Even if Joseph Smith started writing the Book of Mormon when he was 14, and even if he had the help of every person you can imagine who might have associated with him [other than persons in heaven], and even if he could have plagiarized from every book on Earth that was available to him and his associates [other than the records given to him by Moroni], it still seems illogical to me to conclude that the Book of Mormon could have been written by human intellect alone.

Have you even read the Spaulding story, or do you simply offer that as a possibility because you have heard someone else say that before? Do you know that the Spaulding story doesn't have any spiritual teachings whatsoever? Even if the translation process involved copying scriptures from the modern Bible that was available in Joseph Smith's day, which it did not, what do you say about the teachings that are found only in the Book of Mormon, which are consistent with the teachings in the Bible?

It's painfully logical to me that your heart is hardened and you do not see the truth.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 29 2004, 11:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 29 2004, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -antishock82003@Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by -srm@Jan 29 2004, 10:44 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Jan 28 2004, 05:49 PM

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about.  Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

How many are there in 'numerous plagiarisms'? Could you list them?

Better yet, because they're so numerous, I'lll just provide you with a link. If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism. If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

Don't forget that huge portions of Isaiah were included under the guise of the Brass Plates.

So, the portions that are quoted from Isaiah aside, are you suggesting that God cannot reveal similar concepts to different people on different parts of the planet? Are you saying that once one person thinks of something, that becomes the end-all of anyone else having a similar thought without it being considered a plageurism?

I think that is interesting. Does that mean that the only reason you doubted your faith and chose to rely on "logic" is because someone else first doubted it? (Because you are not the first to think that thought, you couldn't have come up with it on your own.)

That is the logical conclusion of your thesis, you know.

I think people can touch upon similarities. But I'm not talking about similarities. I'm talking about plagiarism. Out and out plagiarism. Please click on the link I provide...skim over the various other links, and then get back to me. Can you honestly say that those aren't examples of plagiarism?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Jan 29 2004, 12:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Jan 29 2004, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 29 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by -antishock82003@Jan 29 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by -srm@Jan 29 2004, 10:44 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Jan 28 2004, 05:49 PM

I think Pres. Faust is obfuscating the FACT that there are numerous plagiarisms of the OT and NT in the BoM, and he spins such into a faith promoting blurb that most members won't bother thinking about.  Perhaps this was the Duck's gentle way of broaching the subject?

How many are there in 'numerous plagiarisms'? Could you list them?

Better yet, because they're so numerous, I'lll just provide you with a link. If you bother to actually skim over the pages that are linked it'll soon dawn on you the magnitude of JS's plagiarism. If you want to know how a "simple farm boy" could possbily write the BoM, it's not too hard to imagine that with Spaulding's basis for a story, JS's plagiarism of the Bible, and repition..he could've wrote it.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

Don't forget that huge portions of Isaiah were included under the guise of the Brass Plates.

So, the portions that are quoted from Isaiah aside, are you suggesting that God cannot reveal similar concepts to different people on different parts of the planet? Are you saying that once one person thinks of something, that becomes the end-all of anyone else having a similar thought without it being considered a plageurism?

I think that is interesting. Does that mean that the only reason you doubted your faith and chose to rely on "logic" is because someone else first doubted it? (Because you are not the first to think that thought, you couldn't have come up with it on your own.)

That is the logical conclusion of your thesis, you know.

I think people can touch upon similarities. But I'm not talking about similarities. I'm talking about plagiarism. Out and out plagiarism. Please click on the link I provide...skim over the various other links, and then get back to me. Can you honestly say that those aren't examples of plagiarism?

Yes, I looked at several of the pages (not all of them), and while there were many similarities, the most impressive were the ones where Jesus gave the same talks in America that he gave in Jerusalem (i.e.-the Sermon on the Mount). Many had the same idea but used different words, and many had similar wording.

I don't think that proves anything. IMO, for scripture to be accurate, it can't contradict what has been given previously or in other places; and when one people needs to hear something from God, it is likely that another people needs to hear it, also. We are all human and all have the same weaknesses. We all need to hear 1. that we sin and need to repent, 2. that God loves us, and 3. there is a way to return to God when we do sin.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Getting back to the original topic, it seems to me that if God had intended the Book of Mormon to be accepted based on logic, he would have organized things so as to make the logical case a lot less ambiguous.

No missing steel, horses, battle sites, Hebrew language traces, Semitic DNA; no suspicious parallels with 19th-century Protestantism, anti-Masonry, the Comoros Islands (capital: Moroni), Thomas Paine, King James Version anachronisms, etc. That's not to say that these things disprove the Book of Mormon, but it's hard to dismiss them entirely and say they don't at least provide one plausible alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon's origin.

Maybe the language patterns and wordprint studies FARMS touts outweigh these things in the balance. (I'll leave aside questioning whether it would be fair to make a person's eternal destiny contingent upon his evaluation of evidence that it takes an advanced degree in ancient languages and history to evaluate.) But it seems to me that, at best, the rational evidence for and against the Book of Mormon is evenly balanced.

If it were God's intention that the Book of Mormon should be accepted based on logic (which seems to be the point President Faust is making), why make it such a close call? When I'm trying to convince someone by logic, I try to make my arguments as convincing as possible. (I just got a nice partner-inflicted derriere-chewing today for having evidently failed to do so in a particular instance. Maybe I'm spending too much of my logical energy at LDSTalk ...) I certainly don't blame someone (let alone consign him to the nether regions for much teeth-gnashing and similar unpleasantness) if he decides against me when my case is weaker or equal to the opposing argument. Even if my argument is slightly stronger, I have to expect that a certain number of people will misunderstand or misjudge the evidence, as I will occasionally do myself, being fallible. I only have the right to be annoyed at someone for failing to accept my logic when the balance of evidence isn't even close -- i.e. when it's Alexander Hamilton on one side and Michael Moore on the other.

In short, if God expects the Book of Mormon to be accepted because it's logical to do so, then God must be understood as indifferent to the inevitability that vast numbers of people will give it their best shot and make the wrong call. Alternatively, I could pretend that the rational evidence really is as one-sided as some people would have it -- but then I have to conclude that the non-Mormons who've read the Book of Mormon (some of whom I know personally) are either stupid or stubborn for not accepting something so obvious. The ones I know are not.

So back to the bottom line: The Book of Mormon is to be accepted based on faith. The purpose of rational apologetics (if any) is to try to keep the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon close enough to parity with the evidence against it so that Mormon faith doesn't become completely divorced from reality, forcing Mormons to write off rationalism entirely, after the manner of the young-earth creationists. And defenders of the Church, including some leaders, might consider the implications of what they're saying, and stop trying to steady the ark by proclaiming logical certainty when it isn't there.

[Cal]

Quite an excellent posting---however, I wish I could agree that the evidence on the BoM is that evenly balanced. Please point me to anything that FARM has discovered that overcomes the fact that Moroni himself proclaimed to JS that the indian tribes of the frontier (midwest of that time) were Lamanite, and by implication, Hebreic. DNA proves otherwise. This isn't just one of many small issues. It is an issue that, if not dealt with directly deals a fatal blow to JS's credibility.

Some issues don't have a lot of factuality to rest on, so one ends up talking about probabilities and likelihoods. But this one is pretty well solid.

Yes, perhaps the Lamanites were only a small part of the native american population as some like FARMS and Sorenson like to claim and haven't been found yet. Even if they were, that doesn't overcome the fact that Moroni was supposed to have known who they were, wasn't he? Is Moroni allowed to be wrong? Prophets can be wrong. Can Angels?

The FARMS claim that modern Hebrew DNA is not the same as that of ancient times is simply unsupported by population genetics studies. And it wouldn't matter anyway, because the DNA markers link the midwest na's to North East Asia and not at all to the middle east.

[Guest Starsky]

I find it interesting that repition would be considered plagarism. Christ used repition from the OT throughout His entire ministry...

[Cal]

Repitition, IMHO, is not as big a problem as repetition of things that were mistranslations in the first place, AND quotations of scripture (Isaiah) that hadn't been written yet!

[Guest Starsky]

Not written yet....LOL All things are present with God. Future, past, present...all the same thing with God...

As well as the fact that scripture/messages from God to men are timeless....He can give writings to men from the future...if He can create worlds without end....

Your problem comes from trying to limit or eliminate God and His omnipotence.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 29 2004, 10:25 AM

I think JS used a whole lot more time than the Church wants us to believe in writing this story, and he had help.

It does my heart good to so old mister doubting thomas exercise some blind faith for a change.