I was going to post my thoughts to this thread, but, in a way, Monty beat me to it.
Before Monty posted, my thoughts were that the format of this discussion ain’t fair. We need to either pick a more narrow topic (i.e. a specific aspect of LDS theology) and limit the discussion to that, and perhaps we need to identify our own biases before entering the fray of discussion.
The way this discussion is currently framed, its more like “throw everything we’ve got against the wall, and see what sticks.” I don’t think it invites real philosophical debate.
Plus, there are no boundaries. If Bill and I were to weigh in on the issue of the veracity of LDS theology, Bill would have some concept of where I was coming from, knowing I am an evangelical christian. There would be a common ground for the debate (e.g., we both except that Bible as authoritative, and both believe that God exists, etc.). We could focus specifically on areas of contention. However, with this scattershot method, with any one weighing in with his own philosophy, it will be tougher for Bill to focus in the debate. An atheist will have his agenda/world-view, as will an agnostic, or any other personal religious philosophy. On the far extreme will be those who are just ornery. I remember times on the old AOL board where George’s response to a point would be something akin to “So?,” or Ben would shoot back his ubiquitous “why?” Its not that discussion couldn’t be held in this format, I just feel bad for Bill, in that he would have a difficult time dealing with the scattershot challenges to his presentation, whether they be legitimate questions, angry attacks, or the usual games played by “trolls.”
Bill has also protested that he is not equipped for the task of being the one defending his faith. I have to respect that; I’ve done enough research into Mormonism to know that Bill acquits himself very well in defending his church, but Bill is honest enough to admit he doesn’t have all the answers (a trait sadly lacking in many who post to this board). And I don’t mean that Bill equivocates in what he believes in; he’s made it quite clear that he believes the LDS way is the “one true way,” what I mean is he often admits he isn’t knowledgeable about a particular subject, and will not submit an authoritative answer when he really doesn’t have one. So Bill is being placed in an unenviable position; he has been anointed the SDMB Mormonism expert, yet admits he’s not an expert theologian. That’s a trick bag that’s awfully difficult to fight your way out of.
For example, Bill states that the Book of Abraham papyrus were destroyed in a fire (or at least that’s what he’s heard). I recently discovered that the BOA “original” papyrus were re-discovered in 1967, and subjected to scientific and historical analysis. But rather than debate this, one can look it up at several internet sites, and see for yourself. Admittedly, a lot of the published material on the rediscovery of this material is decidedly anti-mormon (mostly because the conclusion of the experts is it is not the “Book of Abraham,” but an ordinary ancient Egyptian funeral document), but, like Bill said in his post above, you can connect to the internet sites and make look at it yourself. See http://www.irr.org/mit/boapage.html.
And ultimately, this is a “great debate,” not MPSIMS about Mormonism. I’ve discovered in my past dealings with Bill that when he gets into a “debate” mode about Mormonism, he ultimately feels bad about it, and even shuts down and doesn’t want to post to the board, etc. I would just warn Bill that he’ll only regret getting into this.
And, I ultimately agree with Monty. This whole discussion is a set up to bash Mormon theology. I’ve considered engaging Bill in this type of debate before (by e-mail), but we’ve usually decided its not worth it. I know that ultimately, Bill and I will never convince the other of the relative merit of the other’s position. So why bother? I consider Bill a friend, and do not want to hurt his feelings. I pray that someday Bill will see that Mormonism is a fraud (which I say from my own extensive reading and research into the subject, not out of animosity towards any one in particular) and embrace the truth of the gospel, BUT, I don’t make it an issue between us. Most of you have discovered what a great guy Bill is. Why would I want to bring him down in a forum like this?
As an aside, I’ve been reading a book that’s stirred a lot of controversy in evangelical christian circles. Its called “Blinded by Might,” by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobsen. Written by two men who were once high level employees of Jerry Fallwell’s Moral Majority organization, they have come to the conclusion that they were wrong, that trying to change the face of american culture to defend what we believe are the Judeo-Christian cultural foundations of our society via the political process doesn’t work. We can only affect our society by changing people’s hearts and attitudes, from the bottom up, not from the top down. I happen to heartily agree. The basis of the sort of debate embodied in this thread is to use truth as a weapon to bludgeon. For too long, many on my side of the aisle have been guilty of this kind of behavior. I feel like there’s a need for Christians to apologize for this kind of behavior. That doesn’t mean to compromise on the truth, but to recognize that the battle is the Lord’s, and that we need to depend on spiritual power to convince, rather than the force of our will or the cleverness of our argument.
That’s how I’ve tried to treat my discussions with Bill about Mormonism, and my discussions about matters of faith and morals with anyone else on this board. As such, I think this thread is unfair, and ill-conceived. Monty is right on.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
). I would be breaking an LDS commandment by teaching Mormonism right now.