So the bottom half of this post seperated by the line is what I sent to him and this was his reply. You guys were great help with his last email.
So, I specifically sent Jeff Lindsay's web site for that very reason, that he doesn't speak for the church (of course you know the church steers away from bickering and bashing) or isn't associated with BYU, etc. When those sources are sent, don't you just criticize the source saying, all those sources work for BYU?
"18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."
Can't win; you're rejecting him for one of the very reasons I sent it and if he did speak for the church, you'd reject him on that very account, too. He has compiled a lot material in one place that shouldn't all be taken flippantly. (Also not to take flippantly: I'm mostly done with Sorenson's volume "Mormon's Codex." I had no idea just how well the Book of Mormon does fit in Mesoamerica when evidence is shown by archaeologists/ anthropologists who know what to look for. There is a lot there.)
But the first thing I thought when I read your complaint was "Wait a second, this is coming from my friend who accused me of ad hominem?" I went out of my way to not jump on that wagon with what you sent from Grant Palmer or Jeremy Runnells; who are they? Grant's one of thousands of stake presidents (or tens of thousands of former stake presidents) who disagree with him. Runnells spent one single year "seeking." "Googling is not a synonym for seeking," points out Steven Harper, a historian who knows 10 times more of the subject matter than Runnells or Palmer will by the end of their lives (not by their fault, but just by virtue of how much time he devotes since it's his full-time job: they can't possibly catch up). But all those are examples of ad hominem, so I only now mention them in light of your rejecting information on Jeff Lindsay's page by virtue of the fact that it was put there by Jeff Lindsay.
Anyway, the LOTR satire is amusing and since you are so attracted to the cynical and sarcastic, I happened to find a piece actually by Jeff Lindsay along those lines as a sort of rebuttal to the LOTR piece. He makes some excellent points and I think his arguments are more impressive than the standard Sidney Rigdon or Spalding arguments, don't you?
http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtmlAnyway. Sigh. Your heart is set on leaving? I'm sorry. This gospel's true and the Church, with its flaws, will bring you more happiness in this life than you'll ever find elsewhere. Don't forget that theory because you can always come back to prove it, of course. I know the former (gospel's true) through personal experience of decades. Why on earth would I leave that? It came precisely as Christ promised in John 7:17:
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
I know the latter (the Church is His Church) through extremely personal experiences, which you've belittled in the past as "anecdotal," so I'll be keeping those in. But I believe your parents have had equally convincing irrefutable experiences that I hope you'll ponder for the rest of your life.
Now, hope our arguing doesn't make us enemies. I like you a lot. I hope you and Rebecca have a wonderful awesome future together with a fun little family. :) I truly do.
Always retain your faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ, my friend. Hold fast to that and don't compromise faith in Him. Let it be your reason for doing good in this world to everyone around you.
With His love and grace,
Kent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Lindsay is just a Mormon bogging his own opinions as a man and member.
He has no authority to speak for the LDS church whatsoever.
Why would you send me to a random man’s personal blog to determine whether the BOM was based in reality when he himself states on his blog:
“This work began in 1994 as a repository for satire and spoofs as well as serious writings on topics I care about, especially some of my religious writings. I’ve also added samples from my hobby of photography. My oddball sense of humor (a.k.a. mental illness in denial) is likely to grate some people the wrong way. Sorry about that.”
Why not send me to LDS authoritative sources such as Mormon Prophets or even the LDS newsroom?
The answer is plausible deniability to assertive claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
On Jeff Lindsay's side bar he references these sites:
“Mormanity is my LDS blog, in operation since 2004. Numerous Book of Mormon issues have been discussed there. Also see the Neal Maxwell Institute, FAIRLDS.org, SHIELDS, the Book of Mormon articles at BYU Studies, Mormonism Researched and The Backyard Professor.)”
Notice how the sources are all apologetic and none are external to Mormonism. No other institution on earth agrees that there is one single point of evidence for the BOM. None. That’s why none are referenced.
If this was a Sasquatch bloggers web page their references would also be from inside the Sasquatch apologetic repository.
Also don't you see the huge amount of redirection?
Here's an example of misdirection at work:
2014 Update: Critics who say there is no shred of evidence linking Native Americans with the Middle East might have missed this recent headline: "'Great Surprise'—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins," National Geographic's Daily News, Nov. 20, 2013. Here is the leading paragraph:
Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome.
Exciting, no? But as I explain in a post at Mormanity, we should not get too excited about this report. There are many questions and puzzles yet to explore, and the linkages found may have nothing to do with genes from Nephi's group in 600 B.C. However, this recent scientific finding certainly helps weaken what once seemed like a powerful attack against the Book of Mormon.
He quotes the leading paragraph, but not the next paragraph:
Based on the arm bone of a 24,000-year-old Siberian youth, the research could uncover new origins for America's indigenous peoples, as well as stir up fresh debate on Native American identities, experts say.
A 24,000 year old arm bone...
He then reverses a bit and says "and the linkages found may have nothing to do with genes from Nephi's group in 600 B.C." but it's still misdirection, saying "may have nothing to do" instead of "can't have anything to do" as he properly should given the thousands of years between the two.
Apologetics will always be a game of smoke and mirrors as Dorothy said, with tiny bits of things that could be evidence, might be related, "may have nothing to do with", etc.
Truth should be evident by clear evidence, not a much of may's and might's.
You could make an identical page like this one, about Lord of the Rings:
Thanks to a growing body of research by Tolkien and Near West experts, the mountain of evidence against Lord of the Rings as an actual history is growing smaller every day. Whereas once the alleged work of fantasy was scoffed at and accused of being merely a literary curiosity, scholars now agree that the evidence in favor of Tolkien's masterpiece is growing.
Tolkien himself knew his work to be true, and not simply a fantastical tale. In a letter known as Number 183, he explicitly stated "I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world... the theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live." He then goes on to say "it would be difficult to fit the lands and events into such evidence as we possess, archaeological or geological, concerning the nearer or remoter part of what is now called Europe; though the Shire, for instance, is expressly stated to have been in this region (England)."
Though he did not know for certain where his inspired revelation took place, other than the Shire which comprised only a small portion near the beginning, he still knew that the historical account took place somewhere in Europe. Tolkien did not understand and could not possibly understand how remarkably well his history would align with real places.
Part of the trilogy takes place in a kingdom known as Rohan, which is described as being situated just east of a gap in a mountain range that runs north-south. This gap, known as the Gap of Rohan, separates the rustic and relatively untamed lands to the west from a valley through which runs the great river Anduin, a separator of the lands of men from the evil industrial land of Mordor.
On the Eastern edge of France runs a north-south range called the Vosges Mountains, the last piece of France one can pass through before entering the more modern and industrious nation of Germany. As you drive through modern France along Freeway "A4" heading East, the road bends sharply to the south in order to avoid the tall Vosges Mountains. Then, turning east, the freeway passes through a small gap in the mountains, just east of which lies the French town of Saverne.
Tolkien wouldn't have known it, but Saverne is home to what is known as "Rohan Castle," a neoclassicist structure open to the public that was erected in the late 18th century, though the name dates back to a much earlier time. Situated on the edge of the Vosges Mountains, Rohan Castle marks the entrance to a great valley through which runs the mighty Rhine River, the border between modern day France and Germany. As one reaches the end of the A4 freeway in Strasbourg one can cast their pole into the great river, a body of water that runs north and south, and hope to catch a tug from a dorades - a native fish common in the area with a name eerily similar to "Edoras." It was this river that formed part of the Western Front, a war line marked by heavy battle and bloodshed in the First and Second Great World Wars.
Is it coincidence that Tolkien happened to describe a specific region of France which he had never visited with perfect detail without having ever realized it? Or is it not simply more logical to assume the obvious - that Tolkien received his information from a more divine source? As research continues, I am confident more evidence will be found confirming Eastern France as the actual location for the historical events recorded in Lord of the Rings.
In addition, evidence is growing that Rivendell was located in a gorge carved by the river Bruinen, and although no archaeology has yet uncovered, the ruins of Imladris have long been rumored as being in Lauterbrunnen Switzerland.
I have also located a compelling chiasmus in The Two Towers, chapter 2:
"Their horses were of great stature (A), strong and clean-limbed (B); their grey coats glistened (C), their long tails flowed in the wind (D), their manes were braided on their proud necks (E). The Men that rode them matched them well: tall and long-limbed (B); their hair, flaxen-pale (D), flowed under their light helms (C), and streamed in long braids behind them (E); their faces were stern and keen (A)."
Horses (A) Stature (Solidity) (B) Limbs (C) Coats (Raiment) (D) Tail (Hair) (E) Braids
Men (B) Limbs (D) Hair (Hair) (C) Helms (Raiment) (E) Braids (A) Stern (Solidity)
Why (B) and (E) are inverted on the trailing end is uncertain as of yet, but there must be an important literary reason.
Tolkien was a prophet of the one true god, Eru Ilúvatar, who revealed to him the story of the lowly and humble hobbit Frodo. This hobbit's sacrifice has ensured that the race of men has lived a long and prosperous life. Praise his name.