Well, Kaimi, maybe that is because the tapir weren’t ever ridden.

How often do we have examples of people riding horses in the Book of Mormon? They get mentioned often enough with chariots, but I searched for “horse” in the Book of Mormon and did not find a single example of someone riding on a horse. Maybe I missed something though.

Here’s a funny thing. Horses do get mentioned in a verse about the Nephites stocking up food. That’s a little weird (though not impossible) if they are talking about our style of horses. Perhaps not so weird if they are talking about tapirs/deer. Because, you know, people eat deer, but typically don’t eat much horse.

The scriptures repeatedly say that knowledge comes through obedience, prayer, fasting, and
diligent study of the scriptures to know the word of God. If you want entertainment or plausible explanations of things you already believe, read apologetics. If you want to gain or regain a testimony, that is not going to cut it. I see nothing in scripture that says you can “book smarts” your way to the Celestial kingdom.

Not that worldly learning isn’t important, it just won’t create a testimony from one that isn’t there. The corollary being that God is not likely to unequivocally reveal himself through science. ]]> http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/12/swords-and-clubs/#comment-33484 David King Landrith Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:26:38 +0000 /?p=1720#comment-33484 Clark, we're in total agreement about intended audience and efficacy. I don't know quite how to deal with people with doubts on the verge of leaving. Clark, we’re in total agreement about intended audience and efficacy. I don’t know quite how to deal with people with doubts on the verge of leaving.

Don’t take that as a criticism, mind you. As I said, I think most apologetics reflect the author’s own way of reconciling limited evidence but rarely have much persuasive power to anyone but the author. I came to that conclusion after reading other apologetics critically and listening to people respond to my own apologetic arguments. Often arguments that were very persuasive to me were totally unconvincing to others.

Unless what you want is a book just FILLED with more cureloms and cumoms.

Not that I am certain that we can discern much from what people let slip when they become much busier, but a number of men have become less certain about some things upon recieving that call.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that the thesis embraced by so many is much older than twenty-five years or so. People who had been debating it were long dead then and I had already read some of their words.

My point is that many prevalent apologetic arguments are quite obviously auxiliary hypotheses. I thought that this was one of the posts that Kaimi made. I don’t mean to insult Jeff Lindsay or his rather extensive and impressive body of work. It’s nothing I could replicate, and even poor arguments often serve an experimental or transitional purpose.

For my part, I usually defend the Book of Mormon to other Christians by going after the historical basis of the New Testament, which is pretty darned shaky in its own right. To be sure, this kind of mutually assured destruction approach doesn’t convince anyone that the Book of Mormon is true. It does, however, demonstrate that the deck I’m playing playing with has at least as many cards as theirs.

That’s why, I think, I find the writing of apologetics so problematic. Most of them are arguments for why the apologist can rationally still believe. They are thus frequently tied to their suppositions and whatever debate they found themselves in. However I find that the number of apologetics actually carefully written with the doubter in mind in an informed way are very rare.

That’s not to criticize apologetics, as such. It’s just that I think most are written by true believers to true believers. Further I think that when they are given to people weak in belief or with no belief at all that they have a very negative effect.

That’s not to say that there aren’t very good questions attacking the plausibility of many attacks on faith or even establishing strong doubts of the doubts. However I think those tend to be in the minority. (If only because the strong places in our beliefs are rarely the places people doubt)

Once again though that depends upon ones audience. If ones audience is a recent member who was told by an anti-Mormon that prophecy ended with John then that is easy to answer strongly. It’s the more naturalistic, rather than textual, criticisms I’m referring to.

Comment by danithew — 12/8/2004 : 5:10 pm

There are, along with Behemoth (for the hippo), and doleful critters, etc. I just ran out of steam.