Apples, Oranges and Nephites

[_Markk]

How would a LDS apologist address an atheist using the same arguments a Christian apologist might use in questioning the reality the Book of Mormon story? The LDS apologist must tear down the Bible in order to give the Book of Mormon the slightest chance of being "real." And further more when the Christian apologist starts making sense, then the "tearing down" shifts to the messenger. We have all seen that at the old boards again over and over.

Mormonism cannot stand on it's own, it needs Christianity to fail...in order for it to succeed. This need started in the Grove when Jesus told Joseph "they are all wrong."

[_Philo Sofee]

How would a LDS apologist address an atheist using the same arguments a Christian apologist might use in questioning the reality the Book of Mormon story? The LDS apologist must tear down the Bible in order to give the Book of Mormon the slightest chance of being "real." And further more when the Christian apologist starts making sense, then the "tearing down" shifts to the messenger. We have all seen that at the old boards again over and over.

Mormonism cannot stand on it's own, it needs Christianity to fail...in order for it to succeed. This need started in the Grove when Jesus told Joseph "they are all wrong."

Exactly what gives atheism its fundamental strength on my take of it, since when Christianity fails, what's left?

[_moksha]

Anyway, the Hamblin/Jenkins debate/commentary was the final nail in my Mormonism coffin. Hamblin was called out and he had nothing, NOTHING.

All Professor Jenkins was asking was to produce a single shard of Nephite pottery. If I was Professor Hamblin, I would have made the trek across campus to the art department and put in a request to one of the BYU potters. A small totem of three ravens each bearing forelocks and a yarmulka could have sufficed and this would have resulted in a frolickingly good Jell-O victory celebration on the quad. It would be the front page story in the Interpreter and Professor Hamblin would have carte blanche in choosing the acrostic.

[_Philo Sofee]

Anyway, the Hamblin/Jenkins debate/commentary was the final nail in my Mormonism coffin. Hamblin was called out and he had nothing, NOTHING.

All Professor Jenkins was asking was to produce a single shard of Nephite pottery. If I was Professor Hamblin, I would have made the trek across campus to the art department and put in a request to one of the BYU potters. A small totem of three ravens each bearing forelocks and a yarmulka could have sufficed and this would have resulted in a frolickingly good Jell-O victory celebration on the quad. It would be the front page story in the Interpreter and Professor Hamblin would have carte blanche in choosing the acrostic.

He could have come up with perhaps... Jenkins is Beavis....

For instance:
Jolly good show the enemies put forth
envy is not one of their strongpoints however,
notwithstanding the mockery and hat mongering,
knowing the truth really does set us free.
instead we get mere innuendo and silliness from would be scholars.
nevertheless, we have proof right here, though the Holy Spirit is the most important way.
Suffice it to say, the Book of Mormon remains true and steadfast.
I would propose a simple test for the would be critics of Mormonism.
Show us the proof the Book of Mormon is false!
Believe you me, it had better be good stuff however, we have powerful scholars.
Entertaining as it was, Mr. Jenkins is just wrong to cut me off like he did,
and I am nots amused, not even a little bit.
Various evidence cross check themselves demonstrating truthfulness as Jenkins ought to know,
instead, we get mere mockery and a total changing of the subject, as usual.
Sincerely.

[_Markk]

How would a LDS apologist address an atheist using the same arguments a Christian apologist might use in questioning the reality the Book of Mormon story? The LDS apologist must tear down the Bible in order to give the Book of Mormon the slightest chance of being "real." And further more when the Christian apologist starts making sense, then the "tearing down" shifts to the messenger. We have all seen that at the old boards again over and over.

Mormonism cannot stand on it's own, it needs Christianity to fail...in order for it to succeed. This need started in the Grove when Jesus told Joseph "they are all wrong."

Exactly what gives atheism its fundamental strength on my take of it, since when Christianity fails, what's left?

In the eye's of a Mopologist, Mormonism is what is left.

[_Chap]

Lemmie said:
...
That could be a great film. Does Mel Brooks do Mormon stuff?

Spiritual or imaginary Nephites are the wave of the future ...

Excuse me - did nobody notice the Yiddish speaking Indians in Blazing Saddles?

If that wasn't a Book of Mormon reference, I don't know what is ...

[_Maksutov]

Mel Brooks is a prophet.