Disbelieving the Scriptures.

[Maxel]

So fitting that after 3 months, one topic of discussion has returned to the slaying of Laban- the very instance in scripture that lead to this thread.

I'll say here what (I think) I did there: God's ways are higher than our ways. Either the Book of Mormon is true and its accounts factual or it is not. Attempting to dilute the doctrine and truth therein to satisfy the social mores of modern society is a step on the road to apostasy.

I feel the desire to remind (or inform) everyone reading that this entire exercise was originally to prove that everyone chooses to disregard at least a few accounts of scripture. However, the case is this: one cannot disregard certain passages in the Book of Mormon because one could (in good faith) disregard certain passages in the Bible. So far... nothing else has been proven, and claiming that the account of Nephi and Laban is somehow fabricated or a coverup is damaging and harmful to one's understanding of how God works among His children.

[Dravin]

What is the evidence - not dogma - but evidence, that God ordered murder, stealing and kidnapping.

Same as Nephi lying, there isn't any evidence, not in the sense you mean. You can bring up things like God being merciful and just with the idea that God commanding such isn't merciful or just, but there isn't any evidence that God is merciful or just, just dogma. I suppose ultimately there is no evidence one way or the other, only dogma.

Unless I'm missing something (a very possible possibility).

Edited August 1, 2009 by Dravin

[Snow]

Same as Nephi lying, there isn't any evidence, not in the sense you mean. You can bring up things like God being merciful and just with the idea that God commanding such isn't merciful or just, but there isn't any evidence that God is merciful or just, just dogma. I suppose ultimately there is no evidence one way or the other, only dogma.

Unless I'm missing something (a very possible possibility).

No, you are spot on... others, not you, don't seem to get it.

[JohnnyRudick]

No, you are spot on... others, not you, don't seem to get it.

Oh, I get it about evidence.

But

I only "choose to believe" Scripture without evidence.

That, is good enough "evidence" for me.:)

(and for many others)

"Scripture"

Bro. Rudick

Edited August 1, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Clarify

[bmy-]

Oh, I get it about evidence.

I only "choose to believe" Scripture without evidence.

That, is good enough "evidence" for me.:)

(and for many others)

Bro. Rudick

Logical fallacy.. 'appeal to the people'. But hey.. different strokes for different folks. Just thought I would point that out

[Snow]

Oh, I get it about evidence.

I only "choose to believe" Scripture without evidence.

That, is good enough "evidence" for me.:)

(and for many others)

Bro. Rudick

Johnny,

I think there is a regulation that your posts have to make sense or something.

"What" is good enough evidence for you?

[Snow]

Howdy,

On the subject of Laban's demise, check out this article-- "Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order" (Val Larsen, 2007).

Here is an excerpt:

Basically, the author establishes that Nephi's role as a sovereign over his people takes place not at his coronation, which of course occurs much later, but instead during these first few chapters of First Nephi.

The first paragraph on page 4, under the heading, "Setting the Stage" explains how the family of Lehi starts to become differentiated as a sovereign people. It's an interesting take. Although the article is 18 pages, the reader gets an adequate gist of the concept by reading up to page 7 or so.

At any rate, I felt it was an engaging read. Have a great day, everyone.

Cheers,

Kawazu

Egads - is the guy serious?

1. He makes a big show of logic but it's all based on pure dogma: "Nothing that God commands us to do can ultimately be wrong." That's only so if you assume it is so. Logical fallacy - circular reasoning.

2. He wants us to buy that becoming a separatist makes you sovereign. With that logic, we should set the unibomber free.

[Snow]

So you don't consider the testimony of eye witnesses - even a confession from the perpetrator himself! - as evidence? I'd LOVE to see you on CourtTV, you'd make for some good laughs :)

HUH?

There's no eyewitness account. There is only Joseph Smith account of what he claims was an account on golden plates which are currently non-existent from an individual for whom there is no evidence ever lived.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Why not? All the men can be evil but women and children are intrinsically innocent? That sounds sexist to me. Besides - if one man can be evil and deserve death, why can't two men? Or two men and a woman? Or 20 men and 20 women and 10 children? How does increasing the number of people make them any less sinful?

Yeah - how about 100% of the men, 100% of the women, 100% of the teens, 100% of the children and 100% of the infants.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Can you, 2500-3000 years after the fact, with only the testimony of "an anonymous author from over 2500 years ago" honestly say that these actions were UNjust? Tell me how you can justify such an assumption when the only accounts of the event explicitly state that it was just? What reason do you have to "spin" it as evil?

Do you ever get a headache just thinking about how some people can be so... you know... so, uh, um... well you know.

We know what right and wrong is. Murder, stealing, kidnaping rape, etc.... not right, wrong.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

[Moksha]

Numbers 31

Again, standard military practice. Heck that's half the point of war is to kill the men, take the women, and eat their food. The other half of the point of war is to convert people (or kill them if they won't convert). Again, these things haven't changed even today.

Have we determined if that is the basis for our Iraq policy? Could we substitute oil for food, instead of what is suggested above?

[Snow]

So fitting that after 3 months, one topic of discussion has returned to the slaying of Laban- the very instance in scripture that lead to this thread.

I'll say here what (I think) I did there: God's ways are higher than our ways.

Ah - the old appeal to mystery - we humans just aren't smart enough to understand how murder and stealing and kidnapping is good and holy.... meaningless platitude.

Either the Book of Mormon is true and its accounts factual or it is not.

Uh, no. It doesn't even take a millisecond of contemplation to know that is incorrect. The BoM could be doctrinally true while it's historical accounts could be as inaccurate as the bible's historical accounts.

Attempting to dilute the doctrine and truth therein to satisfy the social mores of modern society is a step on the road to apostasy.

Meaningless platitude. I can just as easily and accurately say that I, one who questions all this stuff, am 7 times further away from apostasy from you, one who doesn't question, and the evidence that I am not correct is zero.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

] So far... nothing else has been proven, and claiming that the account of Nephi and Laban is somehow fabricated or a coverup is damaging and harmful to one's understanding of how God works among His children.

Okay - nows put up time - demonstrate that what you say is even remotely true - show that my understanding of how God works among His children has been damaged.... go on, show it.

Well?

[Vort]

1. He makes a big show of logic but it's all based on pure dogma: "Nothing that God commands us to do can ultimately be wrong." That's only so if you assume it is so. Logical fallacy - circular reasoning.

Can you provide a religious truth or axiom that is not "based on pure dogma"?

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

In any case, the example you cite is not circular reasoning. It's true by definition: That which is Godly is good. If you disagree with this fundamental axiom, then you might as well be speaking Martian, because your arguments will make no sense in the context of the LDS faith.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

I agree that the particular bit of reasoning is not sound, but you are engaged in a much greater fallacy; you assume that you are capable of judging an action to be good or evil based solely on how it's recorded in scripture. Then, once your infallible judgment is rendered, you use your pronouncement of a thing as "evil" to argue that God, who is incapable of evil actions, cannot have ordered it.

Fact: Nephi killed Laban.

Now, you refer to this killing as "murder". This leads to two mutually exclusive possibilities:

Possibility #1: You are correct; Nephi murdered Laban. In this case, God cannot have commanded Nephi to do the act, since by definition murder is sinful.

Possibility #2: God commanded Nephi to kill Laban. In this case, you are wrong, since by definition any Godly act is good.

By your absurdly biased wording, you assume Possibility #1 and preclude the existence of Possibility #2. Instead, assume for the moment that Possibility #2 is the truth. In that case, no amount of insistence by you that Nephi "murdered" Laban matters. You are wrong. Period. It is up to you to adjust your thinking and understanding to conform to reality, not the other way around. Whether or not you understand it, it's still the case, and haranguing others because of your own ignorance doesn't change the situation.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

You keep phrasing things in impossible terms: "What is the evidence...that God ordered murder?" But of course, God cannot "order murder"; once God orders it, it isn't murder. Phrasing impossible questions, then gloating that they're impossible and that therefore you must be right, is not a valid way of establishing your point.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

[ruthiechan]

You keep phrasing things in impossible terms: "What is the evidence...that God ordered murder?" But of course, God cannot "order murder"; once God orders it, it isn't murder.

So, you're saying that God, who is a Celestial Being, is above Celestial Law?

[Snow]

Can you provide a religious truth or axiom that is not "based on pure dogma"?

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Yeah - natch. Jospeh Smith was the first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That's not dogma, that's historical fact.

Hey Vort, it's really really clever how you cut and paste my "THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®" bit - really, seriously. Except you used it wrong. It was designed to be used after highlighting a quote that demonstrated lack of thinking, not after asking a question with an easy answer. I should have put the warning: "Please Don't Try This at Home."

In any case, the example you cite is not circular reasoning. It's true by definition: That which is Godly is good. If you disagree with this fundamental axiom, then you might as well be speaking Martian, because your arguments will make no sense in the context of the LDS faith.

Could you be any more wrong? Not everyone believes that the or a supernatural deity is good. It's simply a dogmatic tenant of our faith.

Saying that all actions by God are good because God is good is purely circular.

Fallacy: Begging the Question

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Hey - there you copied me again. You are doubly clever tonight.

I agree that the particular bit of reasoning is not sound, but you are engaged in a much greater fallacy; you assume that you are capable of judging an action to be good or evil based solely on how it's recorded in scripture. Then, once your infallible judgment is rendered, you use your pronouncement of a thing as "evil" to argue that God, who is incapable of evil actions, cannot have ordered it.

Okay - what the fallacy? Demonstrate it.

Fact: Nephi killed Laban.

That's not a fact. That's something you believe because Joseph Smith said that he translated it from some plates, that we don't have, written by someone that no one knows existed.

Now, you refer to this killing as "murder". This leads to two mutually exclusive possibilities:

Possibility #1: You are correct; Nephi murdered Laban. In this case, God cannot have commanded Nephi to do the act, since by definition murder is sinful.

Possibility #2: God commanded Nephi to kill Laban. In this case, you are wrong, since by definition any Godly act is good.

Wrong, wrong wrong.

Possibility 3: God is not good.

Possibility 4: Nephi was crazy

Possibility 5: Nephi was dishonest

Possibility 6: JS was mistaken.

Possibility 7: The golden plate record was in error.

Possibility 8: There was no Nephi

and on and on and on.

By your absurdly biased wording, you assume Possibility #1 and preclude the existence of Possibility #2. Instead, assume for the moment that Possibility #2 is the truth. In that case, no amount of insistence by you that Nephi "murdered" Laban matters. You are wrong. Period. It is up to you to adjust your thinking and understanding to conform to reality, not the other way around. Whether or not you understand it, it's still the case, and haranguing others because of your own ignorance doesn't change the situation.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Oh, hey, you used it again - you hit the trifecta of originality. This must be a proud day for you.

You keep phrasing things in impossible terms: "What is the evidence...that God ordered murder?" But of course, God cannot "order murder"; once God orders it, it isn't murder. Phrasing impossible questions, then gloating that they're impossible and that therefore you must be right, is not a valid way of establishing your point.

1. Impossible because YOU say it's impossible. My that's persuasive.

2. Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. The-Dictionary-Can-Be-Your-Friend ©.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Was that the 4th time you copied me? Why you sly dog you.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Snow
grammar

[Vort]

Can you provide a religious truth or axiom that is not "based on pure dogma"?

Yeah - duh. Jospeh Smith was the first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That's not dogma, that historical fact.

You think "religious truth" means who was the first president of the Church? So any "truth" that in any way interfaces with "religion" is a "religious truth" to you?

This helps to explain why talking with you is so often an exercise in futility.

Hey Vort, it's really really clever how you cut and paste my "THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®" bit - really, seriously.

Well, it's gratifying that you find it so clever.

Except you used it wrong.

No, I used it perfectly. You simply don't understand how to use it correctly.

It was designed to be used after highlighting a quote that demonstrated lack of thinking

My bad. I thought it was designed to make you look like a jerk. It was very effective at that.

In any case, the example you cite is not circular reasoning. It's true by definition: That which is Godly is good. If you disagree with this fundamental axiom, then you might as well be speaking Martian, because your arguments will make no sense in the context of the LDS faith.

Could you be any more wrong?

Sure. I could have written, "Snow is right."

Not everyone believes that the or a supernatural deity is God.

But of course, you originally asked about specific scriptures that people disbelieve. You asked it on an LDS discussion list. You cited Christian scripture in your original post. In your first response, you quoted an LDS article of faith. So clearly, your audience was never those who disbelieve that "the or a supernatural deity is God."

Yet somehow, you can't figure this out by yourself. You ask an LDS audience a question phrased in LDS terms, then cannot understand why people answer using an LDS framework populated with LDS assumptions of common understanding.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

It's simply a dogmatic tenant of our faith.

And how much does that tenant pay for rent? How long does the tenant plan to stay in our faith before it relocates? Do you think we can find other tenants to take its place once it leaves?

Or did you mean "tenet"?

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Saying that all actions by God are good because God is good is purely circular.

Snow, Snow, Snow. You just don't have it tonight, do you?

1. You cannot possibly be so dull as to think that is circular. There is nothing circular about saying "X is good, so therefore everything that X does is good." You apparently don't even know what a circular argument is. The above statement is false, but not because it's circular. It's false because even if X is good, that doesn't mean X is incapable of doing something that is NOT good.

2. You cannot possibly be so unobservant as to think that is what I wrote. Go back and reread -- slowly -- what I wrote. Hint: It wasn't that "all God's actions are good because God is good". It was that the word "good" means "Godly". Therefore, God's actions are good by definition.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Fallacy: Begging the Question

Lacking the ability to understand simple statements

Fact: Nephi killed Laban.

That's not a fact.

fact

That's something you believe because Joseph Smith said that he translated from some plates, we don't have

Explain how this makes it non-factual.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

written by someone no one knows existed.

Prove that no one knows Nephi existed.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Now, you refer to this killing as "murder". This leads to two mutually exclusive possibilities:

Possibility #1: You are correct; Nephi murdered Laban. In this case, God cannot have commanded Nephi to do the act, since by definition murder is sinful.

Possibility #2: God commanded Nephi to kill Laban. In this case, you are wrong, since by definition any Godly act is good.

Possibility 3: God is not good.

Possibility 3a: Water is not wet.

Possibility 3b: Air is not gas.

Possibility 3c: Existence does not exist.

Possibility 4: Nephi was crazy

Possibility 4a: God is a liar

Possibility 4b: God is a fool

Possibility 4c: God is Snow

Possibility 5: Nephi was dishonest

Possibility 5a: God is a liar

Possibility 5b: God is a fool

Possibility 5c: God is Snow

Possibility 6: JS was mistaken.

Possibility 7: The golden plate record was in error.

Possibility 8: There was no Nephi

Possibility 6a: Reality is illusion

Possibility 7a: Up is down

Possibility 8a: Good is evil

Now, let's invent all sorts of new and impossible "possibilities" and introduce them into a conversation just to see how much we can obfuscate things.

1. Impossible because YOU say it's impossible. My that's persuasive.

My, but this is difficult for some people to grasp. Let me try one more time. Please pay attention, Snow.

Language allows us to construct phrases and sentences that follow correct syntactical and grammatical rules but, because of self-negation, carry no intrinsic meaning. Examples: "non-existent entity"; "This sentence is a lie."

The LDS definition of "God" does not allow for a God who can sin.

Thus, your construction of "sinful God" is without meaning in an LDS context.

Is it clear yet?

Now, perhaps you want to think that your nose is God. Be my guest. But your private definition of "God" as "Snow's nose" does not supersede the standard definition used by others. So even if "sinful God" is meaningful to you, referring as it might to your runny nose, that does not imply it's meaningful to others.

2. Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. Buy a dictionary.

Again with the private definition? (Besides, how could a human kill anyone or anything "inhumanly", anyway? And how could an animal NOT kill anything "inhumanly"? By your definition, all non-humans that kill -- animals, plants, falling meteors -- are doing murder. I don't believe any reputable dictionary carries such a worthless, stupid definition.)

Let's look at a small sampling of available definitions for "murder":

Wikipedia: "Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent..."

Dictionary.com: "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."

Merriam-Webster: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

See the common thread? (I helped you out by bolding the relevant words.)

Murder means unlawful killing. Since God authors the law, he cannot act unlawfully. Ergo, God cannot murder, nor can God order murders. Unless we're using the "Snow's runny nose" definition of God. But we aren't.

[MorningStar]

I absolutely do believe that the Church is true or ordained of God or a correct path to salvation.

My point of view allows me to look at any problem in Church history, or supposed revelation or scripture, both modernly or anciently, and acknowledge the difficulties and still accept the underlying validity of the gospel and Church. Other's with a more rigid view have to either ignore the difficulties or my some weird spin on them to try (badly) to explain them away and so reduce their cognitive dissonance.

On the other hand, when first confronted with the facts, many Mormons and general Christians can't effectively deal with the dissonance and simply de-convert.

Interesting, Snow. I met a girl who grew up as a Christian, but she said it was reading the Bible cover to cover that caused her not to believe anymore. I explained to her that as a member of our church, I didn't concern myself with the things in it that are so disturbing because we believe some things were mistranslated and the decision as to which books would be included in the Bible wasn't necessarily inspired (JST note says that Song of Solomon is not inspired, for one).

I am grateful for modern revelation. When I was taught the story of Lot, I found it so upsetting until I saw the JST - otherwise it looks like Lot is volunteering his daughters to be raped. That never made sense to me because I figured two messengers from God could probably hold their own and wouldn't need or want two girls to be sent out to be abused. Then there was the part that said his daughters got him drunk and seduced him. The JST adds, "And they did wickedly." Kind of a relief, but could that story get any more disgusting?

That said, I don't find The Book of Mormon to have the same troubles The Bible does and when Nephi says God commanded him to slay Laban, I believe him. Is it a pleasant story? No. But perhaps we weren't given all of the details as to why it was necessary for Laban to die.

[Gatorman]

I believe that it was Vort who posted something that reminded me of one of the contradications in the bible. One that makes my faith and belief in the bible stronger and explains that Heavenly Fathers purposes do not always have to make sense to our simple understanding of him. Take Adam and Eve. Take the first two commandments given.

1 - Do not partake of the tree

2 - Go forth and be fruitful and populate the Earth.

Based on scripture, our understanding is that Adam and Eve are incapable of accomplishing number 2 until they have broken number 1. In other words, Heavenly Father gave them contradictory commandments. Now why oh why would Heavenly Father give them these contradictory commandments? Simple. So that the could fall and sin and begin the journey that is our purpose on Earth. Without it, without creating a situation that would mean they had to choose to sin, his purpose could not be met. However, he could not force them to eat and fall. He had to give them the choice.

Snow, if you believe in the Church and the Scriptures, then it means you must believe in the truth of the book of Mormon. Now, that means that, for the purpose of teaching us, Nephi was commanded to kill Laban OR he felt that he was. However, the facts are that scripture says he did and you believe those scriptures. OR, you don't believe the scriptures and you enjoy making arguments for the purpose of making arguments.

What does it matter, in the Nephi/Laban story, what the facts, as you see them are. Secondly, you operate as if your personal belief in something as fact or dogma is all the matters. The fact is, your posts are simple dogma. And, most everyone I have read I want to run over with my carma. :)

Point being, what is the purpose. Is it to uplift and edify? If not, then you are counter to the teachings of the leaders of the church. Can you uphold and sustain the leaders of the church while you regularly go counter to their teachings? I do not ask this because I want to put you down or insult you. You truly appear to need to think about this. You speak as if believing in scriptures without proof is bad, believing in the dogma. I say it is faith and the stronger your faith, the less proof you require, the better off you are. I have more faith in the proof of the scriptures than I do in science. Scientific or investigative proof is the faith in man's own mind. Proof in what you call dogma is faith in the will of Heavenly Father. I am sorry, but, NOTHING you can ever say will make me think that 'proof' is better than 'faith'.

[HEthePrimate]

Oh, for heaven's sake, folks, stop ganging up on Snow! Is it impossible for you to disagree with her without implying she's some kind of infidel?

As I understand it, we have been given the Scriptures, in our own language, so that we can read them for ourselves and be guided by the Holy Ghost through personal revelation so that we don't have to rely on other (fallible) people to interpret them for us. God gave us a brain for a reason.

Kudos to Snow for thinking for yourself!

HEP

[Gatorman]

I am not 'ganging up on' Snow. I am countering the points made by Snow that have suggested or pointedly stated that believing in Dogma is bad. I have studied the scriptures. I have prayed about them. I do not require evidentiary proof of anything in them. And, while I am not like the prophets and my understanding is not as great as theirs, my faith is strong enough to understand that proof is not required. When proof is required, examples in the scipture prove bad things happen.

So, what we have, is Snow making arguments that belief without proof is a fallacy. Now, if that is not Snow's intention, Snow's method is accomplishing the feat regardless. Perhaps, my intelligence is not great enough to understand Snow's true purpose or position, but, the appearance is that Snow is suggesting we should not believe scriptures and the leaders of the church without evidentiary proof. On the other hand, you have myself and others suggesting that faith without proof is stronger than belief after proof. Further, we also suggest that requiring proof is not looked upon well by Heavenly Father, as evidenced by Korohor and others.

Let me try a slightly different tact. Snow, can you please provide scriptural or teaching from the leaders of the church that show that we should not believe in a specific scripture or that we should question our own understanding if we do not have evidentiary proof? It is possible I have missed such teaching and need to study and ponder it to truly understand your position.

[Guest missingsomething]

Can you provide a religious truth or axiom that is not "based on pure dogma"?

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

In any case, the example you cite is not circular reasoning. It's true by definition: That which is Godly is good. If you disagree with this fundamental axiom, then you might as well be speaking Martian, because your arguments will make no sense in the context of the LDS faith.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

I agree that the particular bit of reasoning is not sound, but you are engaged in a much greater fallacy; you assume that you are capable of judging an action to be good or evil based solely on how it's recorded in scripture. Then, once your infallible judgment is rendered, you use your pronouncement of a thing as "evil" to argue that God, who is incapable of evil actions, cannot have ordered it.

Fact: Nephi killed Laban.

Now, you refer to this killing as "murder". This leads to two mutually exclusive possibilities:

Possibility #1: You are correct; Nephi murdered Laban. In this case, God cannot have commanded Nephi to do the act, since by definition murder is sinful.

Possibility #2: God commanded Nephi to kill Laban. In this case, you are wrong, since by definition any Godly act is good.

By your absurdly biased wording, you assume Possibility #1 and preclude the existence of Possibility #2. Instead, assume for the moment that Possibility #2 is the truth. In that case, no amount of insistence by you that Nephi "murdered" Laban matters. You are wrong. Period. It is up to you to adjust your thinking and understanding to conform to reality, not the other way around. Whether or not you understand it, it's still the case, and haranguing others because of your own ignorance doesn't change the situation.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

You keep phrasing things in impossible terms: "What is the evidence...that God ordered murder?" But of course, God cannot "order murder"; once God orders it, it isn't murder. Phrasing impossible questions, then gloating that they're impossible and that therefore you must be right, is not a valid way of establishing your point.

THINK-BEFORE-YOU-POST ®

Thank you Vort... thank YOU.

[Guest missingsomething]

Wouldnt this be better in the gospel thread??

[HEthePrimate]

Wouldnt this be better in the gospel thread??

I was actually wondering the same thing.

[JohnnyRudick]

Johnny,

I think there is a regulation that your posts have to make sense or something.

"What" is good enough evidence for you?

"Scripture"

That stands at this present time "Good enough evidence" for me.

I Need no outside witness at this time.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Wouldnt this be better in the gospel thread??

No, we need the "Laugh" button.

Bro. rudick

[MorningStar]

Snow, I'm wondering why Nephi would go to the trouble to engrave something that is not true on plates with very limited space. That doesn't make sense to me. Which of Nephi's actions do you think were commanded by God?

[HEthePrimate]

"Scripture"

That stands at this present time "Good enough evidence" for me.

I Need no outside witness at this time.

Not even the Holy Ghost? The Koran is considered scripture by many, many people. Is it "good enough evidence" for you?

(Sorry, mon ami--I couldn't resist! My mischievous side is kicking in again! )

HEP