My Column in the "Mormon Times"

[_Daniel Peterson]

I do, indeed.

God's creating a solution to help resolve a problem that God has perceived would, if true, go a considerable distance (on most definitions of God) toward proving that the problem is real, and would justify confidence that the solution is correct.

Convinced that God has in fact done so, I'm confident about what follows therefrom.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I'm reminded of a warped version of Jesus' exchange with his disciples on the road to Caesarea Philippi: "Whom do men say that I am?" he asked. And Peter replied, "Thou art the second hypostasis of the incomprehensible metaphysical Trinity, a hypostatic union of unconfused but coexisting deity and humanity, consubstantial with the Father, a separate person but, ontologically speaking, the same transtemporal being." And Jesus said unto him, "What?"

And Peter replied, "Forgive me Lord, I was just kidding, for I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that thou art an eternal intelligence begotten in the spirit by Elohim and a random goddess whilst on Kolob and that thou wast conceived physically when Elohim got it on with thy mother, Mary. And from this all might know thy true gospel, that thou art a polygamist, and that for this thou wilt soon be crucified."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Cute. Irrelevant to my point, though.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Cute. Irrelevant to my point, though.

Would you care to identify the nameless acquaintance of yours, the philosopher theologian, mentioned in the fourth to last paragraph? I'd like to peruse his/her work to investigate why he/she came to that conclusion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, I would not. Genuinely sorry.

[_Eric]

Would you care to identify the nameless acquaintance of yours, the philosopher theologian, mentioned in the fourth to last paragraph? I'd like to peruse his/her work to investigate why he/she came to that conclusion.

No, I would not. Genuinely sorry.

I guess that's another perk of writing for a newspaper insert and blog.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's hard to see the "nameless acquaintance" as being much different from the "anonymous informants" that have been graciously supplying me with "intel" about Mopologetics for half a decade now. So I have mixed feelings on Dr. Peterson's caginess on this matter.

I'm not entirely sure whether there is a clear difference in journalistic ethics depending on whether we're talking about the Internet or newsprint, but I wonder if it would be in Dr. Peterson's best interests to reveal the source, or whether his reticence might be sending a highly problematic message (e.g., one of embarrassment).

[_Daniel Peterson]

This week's specimen of profundity and deathless prose:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1983 ... xperiences

[_Nomad]

This week's specimen of profundity and deathless prose:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1983 ... xperiences

An excellent article. Other than the witness of the Holy Ghost, the testimonies of the 11 witnesses are, IMHO, the most persuasive evidences of the physical reality of the plates and their divinely inspired translation.

Mormon critics have, from the very beginning, tried to discount these witnesses. But I have yet to read a single persuasive argument against the testimony of the 11 witnesses, although I have observed that apostate Mormons are willing to believe just about anything when it comes to this topic, just like many of them are willing to buy into the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins, despite the almost non-existent evidence to support such a thesis.

[_Kishkumen]

I believe the witnesses had no expertise to judge the plates an ancient American artifact. I don't know how one gets around that.