If I'm interpreting what you guys are saying about apologists, it seems it's impossible for a believing Mormon to accurately study archaeological history related to the Book of Mormon.
In studying science, don't you first form a hypothesis and then test it until you either prove it or disprove it? Is there anything wrong with starting with the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is true?
I do fully agree about massaging or forcing the facts around one's beliefs. Perhaps the danger is clinging too closely to a tenuous conclusion out of a hope it's true. Not only does it affect your credibility, but it may keep you from discovering other potential conclusions that you have not considered.
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt!
"Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper
"If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug
|