« Sports as Religious Experience | Main | The Bott Affair: Winners and Losers »

Comments

I got the book on my shelf, Dave. And I have actually read the whole thing.

By the way, google "Jesus in Idaho Falls". Don't you think that would be a good title for a new book?

You're at the top of the list on that one, Todd. Interesting chapter-like format on the new front page!

Hello, you note that there is no official way to delineate Mormon doctrine then you denounce older doctrine as improper. This begs the question, then how do you know?

You also note that other denominations are not using 19th century quotes which is true in only one aspect. Those denominations did not come to fruition in the ninteenth century, but instead much earlier rendering 19th century quotes improper. Be assured that the Trinity is routinely attacked going back to the second and third century. This includes Mormons attempting to use such material. In this instance shall we not denounce this as well? Additionally, since an older than 19th century basis is used for those denominations existence that leaves any "new" idea such as Mormonism subject to analysis. This is magnified by the fact that both claim allegiance to the Bible in some fashion. When claiming a "different Jesus" the Evangelical is using the Bible, not a 19th century publication, so one should only utilize this as the basis of argumentation.

Ron Paul is currently the only one who claims to be evangelical in the Republican race and he does so discretely in a non-evangelical fashion, Catholics may contain evangelists, but are not evangelical Christians per the stereotypical grouping that occurs. You tend to be engaging in the same acts you are attempting to denounce.

Ideally if Mormonism began with the Bible and the Old Testament predates the Book of Mormon on a timeline then it is legitimate to use only the Old and New Testament as a basis for an analysis of the group. I say New because it should coincide with the doctrines inthe Book of Mormon unless one believes God's Word not to be perfect which cast Salvation as a whole into suspicion. Additionally, since Joseph Smith was allegedly a prophet of God claiming to be speaking for God as a prophet with new prophetic material then we most certainly can utilize his notions from the 19th century. Since Joseph Smith was killed prior to completing the proper Biblical translation then one can only surmize that either a) God is not strong enough to keep his prophet alive long enough to finish the translation, b) God does not care about the incomplete work throwing into question why even have him start ir then, or c) God is ok with imperfection in His Word thus rendering salvation invalid. Based on Mormon 8:12 I guess we must have to go with option c which means Jesus was with sin as Jesus is the Word of God.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

Blog powered by Typepad

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2013-14

Mormon Books 2012

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 09-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07