Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mormonism and Christianity Message-ID: Date: 18 Sep 90 07:51:33 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 39 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >> Lets have some intelligent and meaningful discussion of LDS doctrines and >> believes, instead of mudslinging. >I think a major obstacle to understanding is the lds claim to Joseph >S as a prophet. Many have convincing evidence that Joseph is not prophet >as defined by orthodox christianity. >Early documents that cast doubt on his authenticity are usually brushed >aside by lds people as minor discepancies or not note-worthy. Or just plain wrong. Barry, it's rather hard to answer such a non-specific charge as "early documents..." If you'll be a bit more specific maybe we can talk. I have examined most if not all of your previous accusations here and on t.r.m and found them to be based either on misunderstanding or on some very unreliable sources. Face it Barry, any reasonably competent investigator tries to judge the reliability of his sources, even primary documents. Accepting them uncritically leads to contradicitions and errors. If you are saying that we have to defend everything in the _Journal of Discourses_ of course I'll refuse, the thing is simply no more reliable than the gospels of Nicodemus and Phillip are for early Christians. We can get useful insights from all but they ought not be swallowed whole. >I have found the church leaders and historians when writing their own >history make liberal changes here and there to polish the history for >public consumption with little regard for explanation, or brutal honesty. >This leads me to believe the church accepts _the end result justifies the >means_ principle, and is not honest. Again this accusation is impossible to either confirm or refute since you don't give any specifics, not even the name of any of these writers.