Don Mormon apologists rely on such big “loopholes” for the Book of Mormon that no evidence could possibly invalidate it, even if it were a fraudulent book?
Here is the actual question I received recently from an intelligent and tactful correspondent: I’ve noticed …that LDS defend the Book of Mormon in such a way that it’s apparently logically impossible for it to fall. More explicitly, there are two big loopholes that are big enough to (literally) drive horses through (viz, Sorenson, “An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon”): 1. “It’s a translation problem.” 2. “Nephites and Lamanites weren’t the only people there.” … [T]he more I think about it the more I’m convinced that it would be hard to invalidate any story using the “quest for ancient parallels” that is currently used among pro-LDS apologists. Do you disagree? What would a “disproof” of an alleged ancient work look like? This is an insightful question, but the “loopholes’ aren’t as big as you think. With the Book of Mormon, the proper intellectual (not spiritual) issue is plausibility. There are abundant details of ancient customs, journeys, battles, and terrain whi
Related Questions
- Don Mormon apologists rely on such big "loopholes" for the Book of Mormon that no evidence could possibly invalidate it, even if it were a fraudulent book?
- Will Harpo Reminburse all Oprah viewers who bought fraudulent Seinfeld book DECEPTIVELY DELICIOUS?
- Did Woolworths has confirmed that it is axing its Big Red Book catalogue?
