cdowis

Youtube Apologetics

Recommended Posts

Apologetics is my hobby -- been doing it for over 30 years.  I discovered a new opportunity to talk with the antiMomormons, and have opened this thread to give some quickie examples.

 

Now this first one is not about Mormonism but about evolution.  Some guy gave a "thought experiment" to demonstrate evolution, and here is my response to show that you can prove anything with a thought experiment.

++++++++++++

 

Let's use a thought experiment to prove that humans have a third eye in the back of their head -- it's called adaptive evolution. Humans with that third eye were able to have a better survival rate because they could see danger behind as well as in front of them. The two-eyed humans, believe it or not, eventually went extinct. Can you believe that your 85 million - great- grandfather actually had only TWO eyes!
Remember, this is only a thought experiment.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the difference: Christians follow Jesus and His Word, the Bible. Mormons follow Joseph (Smith) and his false doctrine(s), the BofM, the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price Can you believe that Mormons believe that God was once a man who sinned!!! And that he may have actually been a Christ on another world before becoming God!!!

++++++++++++++++++

My response

1. Historic Christians have replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers, who mingle the philosophies of man with scriptures.
The LDS church has as its cornerstone Jesus Christ who has called living prophets to lead His Restored church.  
See Eph 4:11-14.

2. "God is a man who sinned". This is not a teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. 
Christ told us in John 5: 19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Both the Father and the Son have been sinless for all eternity The antiMormons have poisoned your mind, my friend.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

1. Historic Christians have replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers, who mingle the philosophies of man with scriptures.

The LDS church has as its cornerstone Jesus Christ who has called living prophets to lead His Restored church.  

See Eph 4:11-14.



 

I'm not sure this answer will fly.  At least with Roman Catholics.  Because... the Roman Catholics claim that these theologians/philosophers from whom their teachings stem from have Priesthood Authority.

 

The Catholics claim a direct line of Authority from Christ to Peter and Paul.  This same authority got passed down to the Bishops of which Pope Linus is one and every other Bishop and Pope from then on until today.  The teachings of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas and all other Saints were brought into the Catholic canon through this same authority.

 

Therefore, the only apology that applies really is a challenge to the authority of the Catholic Bishops.  But then you get into a conundrum - because... just like the 3rd eye, there is no possible way outside of FAITH where you can prove authority.

 

Yes, by their fruits you shall know them.  But as far as fruits, the Roman Catholic Church has a pretty strong claim to fruits...

 

Therefore, the only way you can know who has authority is through a personal appeal to the Holy Spirit to shed light on the matter.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Apologetics is my hobby -- been doing it for over 30 years.  I discovered a new opportunity to talk with the antiMomormons, and have opened this thread to give some quickie examples.

 

Now this first one is not about Mormonism but about evolution.  Some guy gave a "thought experiment" to demonstrate evolution, and here is my response to show that you can prove anything with a thought experiment.

++++++++++++

 

Let's use a thought experiment to prove that humans have a third eye in the back of their head -- it's called adaptive evolution. Humans with that third eye were able to have a better survival rate because they could see danger behind as well as in front of them. The two-eyed humans, believe it or not, eventually went extinct. Can you believe that your 85 million - great- grandfather actually had only TWO eyes!

Remember, this is only a thought experiment.

 

I'm not sure I understand this.

 

Anyway... spending apologetics time on evolution is a waste of breath if the overall intent is to defend the LDS faith.  Evolution does not conflict with LDS teaching especially in the light of pre-mortal existence and the nature of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Good question, but I have never found it necessary to have an apologetic discussion with the Catholics.  They leave us alone, and we leave them alone.  Generally we share a mutual respect and understanding.  

 

So my answers are formulated for the "born again" crowd.  

 

2. "Evolution" -- For the sake of simplicity, I left out the context of his post.

Here is a link to the video  

 

I was addressing a post with this conclusion, "Believe it or not, your 185-million-greats-grandfather was – a fish. So was your 185-million-greats-grandmother. "

 

I think you would agree that this is not consistent with LDS doctrine that we evolved from a fish.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Dawkins hates religion and the religious. If you attempt to argue against him on his ground, I can guarantee you that you will lose. The entire basis of his theology (for that is what it is) is that God does not exist, or to put it another way, that we are God (especially Dawkins himself).

 

Your "thought experiment" is nothing of the sort. Thought experiments themselves are not intended as proof, but as a way of getting one's mind around a concept. When the concept is clearly false, the thought experiment is useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To understand what is going on, I suggest that you bring up the video in youtube, and look at the discussion.

 

1. I was not talking with Dawkins.  Each video has a discussion forum, and I was responding to one of the posters.

 

2. That was the point of my post -- to demonstrate that thought experiments, like analogies, prove nothing.  Again, go thru the thread in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

1. Good question, but I have never found it necessary to have an apologetic discussion with the Catholics.  They leave us alone, and we leave them alone.  Generally we share a mutual respect and understanding.  

 

So my answers are formulated for the "born again" crowd.  

 

It still doesn't matter if it's for the "born again" crowd.  They still claim authority - the Bible as authoritative.  Or even if they don't claim any authority, that's still the leg by which the restored gospel and Joseph Smith stands on.

 

The question is still a matter of Authority whether you're talking to a Born Again, Baptist, or even an atheist.

 

 

2. "Evolution" -- For the sake of simplicity, I left out the context of his post.

Here is a link to the video  

 

I was addressing a post with this conclusion, "Believe it or not, your 185-million-greats-grandfather was – a fish. So was your 185-million-greats-grandmother. "

 

I think you would agree that this is not consistent with LDS doctrine that we evolved from a fish.

 

The majority of the scientific community don't believe that we evolved from a fish.  Rather, the common thought is that we evolved from the same ancestor as what the fish evolved out of.  Make sense?

 

So the theory that our great grandfather was a fish is not well-supported by science, so there's no point in addressing it in apologetics.

 

So, let's consider the common ancestor theory instead and how that can relate to the gospel.  Addressing it from the standpoint of ex nihilo, the common ancestor theory doesn't conflict with ex nihilo.  God made man from dust... a traditional Christian can presume that the same dust was used to make fish.  So that, it supports the theory that God created everything out of nothing because evolutionary common ancestor points to one source of life... and that is God, so, even a Born Again Christian or a Baptist can believe in the theory of a common ancestor.  Now, the challenge is in the Old Earth Creationism... because as far as evolution theory goes, it takes time to affect the changes required for species to be what they are... and then there's the dinosaurs... Sola Scriptura folks tend to take the bible literally so they stand by a Young Earth belief.

 

Of course, LDS doesn't believe in ex nihilo, so we are compatible with evolution and Old Earth creationism as well.  So... same thing, we don't need to do apologetics on evolution.  We can just let science do the talking as the well-accepted evolution theory that the scientific community coughed up is compatible with LDS teaching.

 

But, let's just say you really want to tackle that we evolved from a fish.  Even THAT doesn't have to be incompatible with LDS teaching because of the theory of pre-mortal existence.  God may have used a fish (which was created first) to produce the homo sapien before the pre-mortal spirit joined that body.  The set point is that Adam - the first pre-mortal spirit - joined a homo sapien body and gave that body the capability of individual choice.  Therefore, it doesn't matter if man evolved from a fish.  What matters is... that any ancestor before Adam are not spiritual human beings that require baptism for their salvation... even if they are upright walkling creatures...

 

Make sense?

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"descended from a fish"   Dawkins thinks so.  Listen to the video at 2:30 mark.

 

Anyway,this thread is about examples of apologetics on youtube.  You might want to start another thread on evolution.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRITIC

Joseph Smith proved that it's possible to write a 500 page book of pseudo-history out of whole cloth and people will still believe it. 

 

RESPONSE

Assertions are easy to make -- you just open your mouth and start blabbering something.

 Now, let's see you prove it.

 

CRITIC

 you're right. Assertions are easy to make. Joseph Smith asserted that the ancient inhabitants of this constant were of Jewish origin. It's an easy assertion to make. He never based it on anything, and Mormons have yet to prove it. So I'm going to do the same thing you just did to me and withhold my belief until I see something substantial materialize. Until then, the ball is in Smith's court. 

 

RESPONSE

I invite you to read the Book of Mormon with an open mind and the Lord has given you a promise

Mormoni 10 :4-5.....etc

This is something between you and the Lord. 
Remember that Christ promised us in the Bible, "Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you."

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"descended from a fish"   Dawkins thinks so.  Listen to the video at 2:30 mark.

 

Anyway,this thread is about examples of apologetics on youtube.  You might want to start another thread on evolution.

 

I guess I don't understand what the thread is about.

 

You brought up evolution so that's the example I used.  My point is not about evolution.  My point is - there are things that are worthwhile things for LDS people to engage in an apologetic discussion on and there are things that are not worthwhile... evolution is one of those that are not as either way the conversation goes (including we evolved from a fish) does not necessarily contradict LDS teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "thought experiment" is nothing of the sort. Thought experiments themselves are not intended as proof, but as a way of getting one's mind around a concept. When the concept is clearly false, the thought experiment is useless.

 

I can think of one example of where a thought experiment is used for proof: "reduction ad absurdum" when the reverse of the proposition to is assumed true and logical consequences are shown to contradict that assumption. A classic example is Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers. If there are (for example) only 3 prime numbers A, B and C, then any other number must be divisible by one or more of these and give no remainder. However the number (AxBxC+1) will always give a remainder 1 when divided by A, B or C and so must be another prime. Whenever a finite number of primes is assumed, the conclusion must be drawn that there is at least one more. So the number of primes must therefore be infinite.

 

 

Let's use a thought experiment to prove that humans have a third eye in the back of their head -- it's called adaptive evolution. Humans with that third eye were able to have a better survival rate because they could see danger behind as well as in front of them. The two-eyed humans, believe it or not, eventually went extinct. Can you believe that your 85 million - great- grandfather actually had only TWO eyes!

Remember, this is only a thought experiment.

 

Beyond this being a kind of reductio ad absurdum (see above) I don't understand it at all. It seems to be what Dawkins would have called an "argument by incredulity"; since we cannot imagine our ancestors having a different number of eyes from us it therefore can't be true. At least that's the best I can make of it - if I'm wrong, please put me right.

 

But if so I can think of many things that also seem incredible. I've watched my now-nearly-11-year-old daughter grow from a new-born baby, to a toddler, to what she is now without noticing any of the changes as they happened. (Admittedly she never grew an extra eye, but she changed enormously in other respects.) To me she always looked exactly the same one day to the next. And when I look at myself in the mirror and see the laugh lines around my eyes and the worry-lines in my forehead, I can't understand how I can have become what I am now from the fresh-faced kid in my graduation photos. But it HAS happened.

 

 

Richard Dawkins hates religion and the religious. If you attempt to argue against him on his ground, I can guarantee you that you will lose. The entire basis of his theology (for that is what it is) is that God does not exist, or to put it another way, that we are God (especially Dawkins himself).

 

Though I quite like Richard Dawkins as a science author, I've never been impressed with his arguments against God. I don't think he asks the right questions. It's a while since I read The God Delusion, but I remember him comparing God to things like the "Pink Unicorn" and the "Flying Teapot"; things which if they did exist would be within and part of creation. My conception of God (though I'm not certain most LDS would agree) is something/someone outside and giving rise to creation. It's like C.S.Lewis' (sorry to bring him up again) argument about looking for Shakespeare within Shakespeare's plays, and, not finding him, concluding that Shakespeare does not exist.

 

As for evolution, the evolution-based argument against the existence of God has always sounded to me like a steel-girder-based argument against the existence of architects. (Evolution proves how we got here - therefore no need for God. Steel girders explain how buildings stand up - therefore no need for architects.) 

 

P.S. Another argument creationists make against evolution could be called the "it's not very nice argument" - which basically claims that the killing off of non-favoured individuals (those without the 3rd eye, to use dowis' example) is not something our "Nice Christian God" would allow. People who make this argument have obviously never read the Old Testament!

 

P.P.S. Some creationists will tell you that the only reason anyone believes in evolution is because they want to evade responsibility for their sins. However, when you ask them how they explain the existence of Christians who believe in evolution - Christians moreover who believe in sin and the need for grace - you'll get something like this...

 

Creationist: These believers in evolution - they just want to eliminate God so they can do as they like without taking responsibility, or being held accountable by the God who made them.

 

Critic: But what about Christians who believe in evolution?

 

Creationist: There are none.

 

Critic: There are plenty!

 

Creationist: (shakes head) These so-called Christians are deceiving themselves. Jesus told us Himself “In the beginning God made them male and female”. They are calling our Saviour a liar!

 

Critic: Whether they are or not is irrelevant. They believe they are sinners. They believe they need God's grace. If you're right, what can possibly be their motivation for believing in evolution?

 

Creationist: (laughs) How on earth would I know? Go and ask them!

 

Critic: What do you mean "how on earth would I know?" You told me less than a minute ago that you knew exactly what their motivation was! Now you're wriggling out of the question by telling me that you don't!

 

Creationist: (laughs and shakes his head, and goes to find someone else to talk to)

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding an exMormon who was a bishop

 

For those who are not aware, a bishop in the LDS church serves voluntarily without any compensation.  Now that he is no longer serving as a bishop, Lee Baker now  makes a living by attacking his former religion.

 

Now, a question to think about.  Would you go to Judas Iscariot to find out what Christ taught?  Then why are you listening to this fellow.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Let's see some of the latest scientific research regarding DNA and the Book of Mormon ==>>

Here is an article from Scientific American regarding research on haplogroup x as found in the Native Americans ==
"But the surprise was that about 3 percent of the Native Americans tested had mtDNA from a different haplogroup, called X. Some populations, such as the Ojibwa from the Great Lakes region, have a high concentration of X - 25 percent.
How did haplogroup X get to North America? Some X has been found in Mongolia, but it's definitely not common in modern Asia. It can, however, be found in about 4 percent of the present day European population. Genetic anthropologists suggest that the presence of X in North America points to an early migration westward from Europe...... Scientists have also done some testing on pre-Columbian Native American skeletal remains from before 1300, and found haplogroup X in the same proportion it's present in modern Native American populations."
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna2.htm

The only Eurasian ethnic group possessing a relatively high percentage of haplogroup X are the Druzes of Lebanon, Syria and Israel, among whom X makes up 15% of maternal lineages. The Druzes also have the greatest diversity of X lineages of any population, possessing X1a, X1c, X2b, X2e, X2f, X2h and X3 lineages. Non-Druze populations in the Levant have far lower frequencies of X, between 1% and 2% only. Haplogroup X is completely absent from the Volga-Ural region and Lapland, in the extreme east and north of Europe, respectively.

The X2a subclade is also found among many indigenous Amerindian people from North America, notably among the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-Chah-Nulth (11%–13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakama (5%).
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml
 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See also this article from National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

"Great Surprise"—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins

Oldest human genome reveals less of an East Asian ancestry than thought.

"Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people **linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought** according to a newly sequenced genome.
Based on the arm bone of a 24,000-year-old Siberian youth, the research could uncover new origins for America's indigenous peoples, as well as stir up fresh debate on Native American identities, experts say."
Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HUMANITARIAN SERVICE

 

Critic  

a huge corporation who gives a tiny proportion of their income, even if it is a large amount...... is just a corporation, with a PR department

 

Response

It's not just giving money ==>>
 

From 2004 to 2009, 62,503 Church members in 35 countries volunteered their efforts in canvassing neighborhoods and helping at vaccination posts

Helping Hands
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/helping-hands

Humanitarian Fact Sheet for 2013
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/topics/welfare/PD10050531_000_WelfareFactSheet.pdf?lang=eng

Results of a university research study
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/penn-research-shows-mormons-are-generous-and-active-helping-others

Additional information
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/humanitarian-aid-welfare-services-breakdown-donations-costs-resources

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/tsunami-relief
 

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRITIC

What are those extra parts of the Bible that were restored?

 

RESPONSE

1. Christ taught that baptism is necessary for salvation in the Bible, but many Christians deny this teaching.  This doctrine has been emphasized in modern revelation, and that it needs to be performed by one having authority from God.

2. Christ told Peter, 
Matt 16 [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

That priesthood power has been restored to the earth and is held by the living prophet.

3. In Acts 1 it tells us that Christ taught the disciples the things of the kingdom of God for forty days, but what exactly did He teach.  We do not find a record of what He taught.
For example, we know that the early Christians were practicing baptism for the dead, but it is not explained at all.  Just a side note.
Those teachings of Christ has been restored through modern prophets.

4. Many Christians today believe in the Nicene Doctrine of the "one substance entity" (homoousia), but Jesus taught the relationship with the Father, as well as the disciples, in John 

-23.  This teaching has been clarified through modern revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRITIC

Christ said... "there's no marriage in Heaven" 

 

RESPONSE

Fact Check ==>  That is not what he said..  .
Read carefully what he actually said -- read each individual word.

This is what what we teach and believe -- that "marryING  or GIVING  in marriage" cannot  be done in the spirit world (heaven), but eternal marriages can only be done on earth, here in mortality.  

This is the power and authority, the keys,  that Christ gave to Peter, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Marriages performed without that key will end at death -- they will be as "angels".  Only those sealed with the proper authority can be eternal -- eternal families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRITIC

Answer this, are any of his statements incorrect? (antiMormon video)

 

RESPONSE

Let me give you an example of just one issue  -->>

Sir, you spend several minutes and exhibits showing estimates of the church's taxable income.  Please spend several minutes on how that money is used, besides humanitarian work.

For example, what is the church doing with those cattle ranches?
You point out how much non-income properties the churches own, how much in a year does the church spend in construction and maintenance of those buildings.
BYU has been rated one of the best value schools.  The cost for both members and nonmembers are subsidized by the church. 
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/best-value
How much each year is the church spending on education -- three universtities, schools, institute, seminary, the Pathways program, etc.

Sirrah, with a brief mention of the humanitarian spending, NONE of these expenses are mentioned on your presentation.

 

The genealogical resources provided to the public for free such as familysearch.org, the program to capture and maintain records throughout the world -- census records, birth, marriage and death records, and to preserve them.  What is the annual cost of obtaining these records, making them freely available to the public, and preserving them?

See http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3117/6/LDS-Church-Granite-Mountain-Records-Vault-Salt-Lake-City-Locked-down-8-of-the-worlds-most.html

Sirrah, with a brief mention of the humanitarian spending, NONE of these expenses are mentioned on your presentation.
In your ignorance of the facts, you call the church a "racket".

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRITIC

The Bible says.  BLAH BLAH BLAH, etc etc etc

 

RESPONSE

Thanks for sharing with us your personal opinion and interpretation.  But, (nothing personal) as you are aware, even Satan can quote and  interpret the Bible.

Saul was learned in the scriptures, and he rejected Jesus as the messiah, calling the Christian prophets blasphemers.  He had his own interpretation of the scriptures.

As Peter writes
2Pe 1 [20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Only by revelation can we interpret the scriptures.  Thus the need for a living prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRITIC

Joseph was a convicted con man.  He was arrested (or at least attempted to be arrested) on literally dozens of occasions and was convicted several times of fraud-type crimes.

 

RESPONSE

Fair minded people are more interested by the facts rather than the clever rhetorical tricks of the propagandist.  They will discover that the enemies of Mormonism were not only using bullets and the burning of homes, but also the courts as a tool of persecution.

Here are the facts based on scholars who have done extensive, documented research on various aspects of the life and history.

It is interesting that Paul the apostle was a convicted con man, as well as many of the prophets in the Bible.  Just comes with the territory.

Regarding the 1826 trial, see http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/facts.html

He may or may not have been convicted as a "disorderly person", similar to the arrest of Paul the apostle.

 

Regarding the Joseph Smith Papers Project ==>>
Scholars have done extensive, documented research on various aspects of the life and history 

You will find these videos helpful regarding "Joseph Smith and the Law".   They are based on historical documents.
http://www.byutv.org/watch/6bf72946-5023-4842-82b9-f5cc52afe839/joseph-smith-papers-living-by-the-law

http://www.byutv.org/watch/d4437a3b-a00e-4805-8061-5c1c240db0cf/joseph-smith-papers-joseph-smith-and-the-law-part-1

 

+++++++++++++++++

CRITIC 

Joseph Smith and the Banking Society court case

 

RESPONSE

Wiki article is interesting but incomplete, missing many details.

You can read a detailed study here
http://www.fairmormon.org/Misc/KSS.pdf

You might want to skip ahead to section 3.3 "Joseph Smith".

http://www.byutv.org/watch/2c0a1fbe-7aca-46af-8603-604af9b2f665/joseph-smith-papers-joseph-smith-and-the-law-part-2

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ was not merely arrested, but convicted, sentenced, and executed as an insurrectionist and an enemy of the state. If Joseph Smith is to be condemned by antiMormons for merely being arrested, he is in excellent company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, but I am sure you would agree, out of respect, that we should try to avoid using Him as a point of debate.  I  prefer "Christian prophets" instead.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SKEPTIC

I'm one of those rare people who don't need some old geezer who looks like he's been dead for a month promising me a seat in heaven. It's a scam to take advantage of the weak, and their bank accounts. I'm a good person and do good deeds for my fellow man, I'm confident I'll be taken care of without following a money grubbing organization blindly.

 

RESPONSE

And we are in agreement.

As  the scriptures say, that by our works we shall be judged".  You may not have a desire to spend eternity with your Father, but He will not fail you for finding a place (many mansions) for the kind of person you are.f

The Lord has called a prophet in our day, and has restored His Gospel.  I invite you to check it out at mormon.org.  You can do a chat there.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRITIC

Thomas Ferguson  -- why did the mormon leaders give him so much money

 

RESPONSE

Fact check:They didn't.
+++++++++++++++=
In the beginning NWAF was financed by private donations, and it was Thomas Ferguson's responsibility to secure these funds. Devoted to his task, he traveled throughout California, Utah, and Idaho; wrote hundreds of letters; and spoke at firesides, Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, and wherever else he could. After a tremendous amount of dedicated work, he was able to raise about twenty-two thousand dollars, which was enough for the first season of fieldwork in Mexico. 

Stan Larson, Thomas Stuart Ferguson's biographer, who himself makes every effort to portray Ferguson's apparent eventual loss of faith as a failure for "LDS archaeology,"22 agrees, saying that, despite Ferguson's own personal Book of Mormon enthusiasms, the policy set out by the professional archaeologists who actually ran the Foundation was quite different: "From its inception NWAF had a firm policy of objectivity. . . . that was the official position of NWAF. . . . all field directors and working archaeologists were explicitly instructed to do their work in a professional manner and MAKE NO REFERENCE TO THE BOOK OF MORMON."
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Thomas_Stuart_Ferguson
++++++++++++++++++++

The NWAF was not founded to "prove the Book of Mormon" but to do  professional archaeological research in areas of interest to the church. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now