« Call for Student Papers | Main | Multiplying Miracles »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dude, it's done. Everyone knows the Correlation Committee reads DMI.

I would prefer "alpacas and litters," in keeping with my idiosyncratic Andean limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon. (It was the Moche, people! The Moche!)


This may be a cop out in the eyes of some; however, I for one have absolutely no clue about whether there were or were not horses (as we know them) in the Book of Mormon. I don't know exactly what is meant in the passages that reference horses. I suppose I could say the same for many other "difficult" problems (as they are perceived by many) about the Book of Mormon. My testimony about the Book of Mormon arises from what it says that it is: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

I personally have never considered it a zoological text, a geography text, or a building text. My testimony is based on its discussion of Christ, His Atonement, Resurrection, and Teachings.

I agree, however, that one who questions is not necessarily anti-Mormon. There is so much we don't know about the Book of Mormon, its translation, conditions of the cultures who inhabited "the land choice above all other lands", on and on. I can only base my testimony of the book on what we do know. And one thing, at least for me is that testimony is not affected by what people do or don't think about horses, cement, geography. Nor is it affected by correlation committees.

I forgot to add--B.H. Roberts raised some questions about the Book of Mormon: see Studies of the Book of Mormon.

I don't think he can legitimately be called anti-Mormon.

I don't think questioning is anti-Mormon. I think fixating on certain questions can be. But even that is up in the air since the attitude has a lot to do with it.

As for the Meridian article, this is another example of bad apologetics. A few others on the FAIR discussion group agreed with me. I think Meridian sometimes has some good articles, but why is it that anything vaguely relating to science is so typically horrible?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad