2 Responses

1. Hey Mike I appreciate your words. Your very respectful towards the active LDS and present things as facts and logic unlike a John who goes on embarrassing un rational rants that helps us see his own bias which is not scholarly and embarrassing and as a PHD he knows better. I would love the topic of Nahom. And Lehi’s journey in Jerusalem. There have been ZERO good explanations on that. Sandra tanner gets red in the face when asked about that and says Joseph got lucky. Nahom makes the ex Mormons look bad because NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that fully explains that “lucky” explanation. I would love yours because you have a level head and don’t let your personal biases get involved (which is embarrassing) to everybody that listens. We need a fact induced method of an explanation and if there is none then we’ll..,, at least have the humility to admit it

   Reply

   1. I am show your point is well taken. I think there are objections that can be made all along the path here and there a little. But what is overwhelmingly problematic is that instead of taking the evidence in aggregate, our trained inclination is to give credence to those exceptions that you point out instead of credence to the corpus of evidence presented that overwhelmingly tips the scales against the church claims. Something to consider as you ponder all the episodes presented

      Reply