tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post8185820640588023853..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Science: "How a Mormon Lawyer Transformed Mesoamerican Archaeology—and Ended Up Losing His Faith"Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8820230314473310032020-04-28T02:41:15.589-05:002020-04-28T02:41:15.589-05:00Rasakan Jackpot Setiap Hari...Dapatkan Juga Bonus ...Rasakan Jackpot Setiap Hari...Dapatkan Juga Bonus Rollingan Setiap Hari....<br />Seru Bukan??? Yang Pastinya Anda Tidak Akan Berpaling Lagi...<br /><br />Mainkan Permainan Lainnya Dengan 1 User ID Saja...<br />1. Live Casino<br />2. Poker<br />3. Sportsbook<br />4. Lottery/Togel<br />5. Sabung Ayam<br /><br />Hubungi Segera:<br />WA: 087785425244Doyan Mainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479167114600419829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86722805483315181672018-02-14T12:52:44.194-06:002018-02-14T12:52:44.194-06:00The Book of Mormon could only have happened in Nor...The Book of Mormon could only have happened in North America.Bureyeannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00676595033381152546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11819591563227828362018-01-25T16:02:39.023-06:002018-01-25T16:02:39.023-06:00Anomynous;
It’s obvious that you make the LDS arg...Anomynous;<br /><br />It’s obvious that you make the LDS arguments seem ludicrous but truth be told thry are not. While the Book of Mormon does have enough narrative to make the conclusion that the modern-day Native Americans are descended orimarily from the Lamanites, there us no pblgation within the Book of Mormon’s narrative to make such a conclusion. <br /><br />Regarding the Book of Mormon’s former claim that the Lamanites are the primary ancestors to the American zindians, what does that mean? Is it strictly geneological or would it include social and cultural aspects as well? If the Lehites, which includes Nephites and Lamanites, descendents of Laman and Lemuel, and if the Jaredites long before the Lehites, all intermingled with or even created the most advanced Native American civilizations in pre-Columbian America, then they would be the “primary ancestors” of the modern-day American Indian. That’s so far as social and cultural aspects are concerned. As for genes, a huge portion of Native Americans were wiped out. How do we know that the remaining Native Americans by the time the Book of Mormon was first published are not “primarily descended” from Laman and Lemuel? The Book of Mormon does promise that God will preserve their seed. Has science progressed to the point where we do not know if this is the case? What do you know about science that the rest of us do not?<br /><br />Jeff us correct thst as science has progressed, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon has become much more solid. Like Jeff I’ve no doubt this trend will continue. While science is not the source for knowing the Book of Mormon is true, it is nice to have it on its side and it truly is. Far from being ludicriously at odds with it.<br /><br />As for incorrect revelation, everyone, even prophets, are subject to inperfections due to the limitations of mortality. While God’s revelations of knowledge is perfect, man’s interpretations of it are not. Never have been, never will be. They are always subject to corruption. They best cure for bad revelatory inpterpretation is to recieve more revelation. To recieve more revelation, there needs to be living prophets for that is always how God has opperated. It’s a blessing to recieve ongoing revelations, not a ludicrous state of mind.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552143518572172176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54614170488802561372018-01-25T11:40:22.827-06:002018-01-25T11:40:22.827-06:00Jeff, the fact remains that many Book of Mormon pr...Jeff, the fact remains that many Book of Mormon problems cannot be explained without invoking supernatural explanations, e.g., Deutero-Isaiah appears anachronistcally in the BoM because it was in some way prophetically foreseen. Ditto for the usual explanation of how all the 19th-century Christian concepts and controversies found their way into the book.<br /><br />The other major apologetic path for reconciling the LDS scriptures with reality is to redefine key terms, as, e.g., when the Book of Abraham's <i>translation</i> becomes "inspiration," or when <i>Lamanites</i> morph from "Native Americans generally" to "a small group of Native Americans whose genetic traces were swamped by the presence of much larger preexisting populations."<br /><br />Of course, this latter theory creates more problems than it solves. It cannot explain why all these preexisting peoples should go unmentioned in the BoM text, or how it can possibly be squared with the BoM's claim that the land was kept away from other people's knowledge so it could be reserved for the Nephites, or how it can possibly be squared with the early leaders' insistence that the Lamanites were the ancestors of Native Americans as a whole, or how it can possibly be squared with the premises underlying the Church's Indian placement program, etc. <br /><br />Really, Jeff. Are you seriously going to tell me that your wondrous prophets, with their powers of revelation, could get something so basic as the identity of the Lamanites so completely wrong? So wrong that for more than a century they would be teaching Indians utter falsehoods about their ancestry? <br /><br />For more than a century the line was, <i>Hey, all you Indians, guess what? You are a remnant of ancient Israel! And in this book you can read all about your amazing history! Yay!</i><br /><br />But now, says the Church*, it's <i>Oops --- never mind. We goofed. We are prophets, and we have the power of revelation, and we will never lead you astray, but, um, we led you astray. Sorry about massively falsifying your heritage. But hey, you can still trust us on everything else....</i><br /><br />C'mon, Jeff. Doesn't this sort of thing trouble you even one little bit? Can you not see how ludicrous it appears to outside observers?<br /><br />You don't really believe in the BoM because of the evidence, do you? To me it appears that you believe in spite of the evidence, so that your approach to the evidence is to explain it away. You believe because you believe. And that's fine --- though you would look much less foolish if you would just admit as much and stop torturing the contrary evidence and the English language.<br /><br />-- OK<br /><br />* Actually, the Church <i>doesn't</i> say this. But don't you think that generations of grossly misinforming people about their heritage warrants some kind of apology?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53836720244809523602018-01-25T06:59:57.185-06:002018-01-25T06:59:57.185-06:00OK, I know your opinion and thank you for it, but ...OK, I know your opinion and thank you for it, but strongly disagree. It's actually a very old view. Critics in the 19th century were saying the same thing. The forecast for the demise of the Book of Mormon, always just around the corner, keeps running into astonishing problems, such that a large number of the ridiculous blunders that intelligent people could easily pick out in 1830, 1850, 1900, 1950, and 1985 keep running into EVIDENCE that turns the tables and forces a hasty revision. <br /><br />Crossing the Arabian desert would be impossible and the description is totally ridiculous ... no evidence of ancient writing on metal plates ... ancient Americans were savages and lacked written language ... Alma is a plagiarized woman's name ... Christ was born in Bethlehem, not the "land of Jerusalem" ... "It came to pass" is ridiculously overused ... There can be no such place as Bountiful ... fine steel did not exist in Laban's day ... barley was not known in the ancient Americans ... the ancient Mesoamericans (Mayans) were a peaceful, tranqui people with no relationship to the wars described in the Book of Mormon ...<br /><br />Fast forward to today, when these arguments have been transformed. The once ridiculous blunders of Lehi's trail are now by necessity explained away by assuming that Joseph must have had access to the world's finest maps of Arabia to account for the many lucky hits, and there's a constantly growing list of resources that must have been sources in some way for tidbits of Hebrew this and Mesoamerican that and (maybe coming soon) an Egyptian wordplay or two in order to account for the strengths of the Book of Mormon. The trend has been rather strong: weaknesses steadily becoming strengths. Let's revisit the dire straits of the Book of Mormon in a decade and see how things have developed. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30251624443419010302018-01-24T14:26:14.839-06:002018-01-24T14:26:14.839-06:00https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150302...https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150302-honduras-lost-city-monkey-god-maya-ancient-archaeology/<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976834/Incredible-photos-untouched-ruins-Honduran-rainforest-reveal-fabled-City-Money-God-DOES-exist-centuries-speculation.html<br /><br />If I full reading of this discovery based on the articles sbove and a few more, this discovery is in Honduras, shows an unknown civilization who thrived there for about 400 years (1,000 - 1,400 AD ), and arttifacts are right there on the surface of the land to simply scoop up and examin. It’s an archaeological dream come true but has yet to be cultivated and learned from. I think this alone shows the limitations of archaeology.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074265168754077171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76620460891568455962018-01-22T13:59:56.639-06:002018-01-22T13:59:56.639-06:00This is a great post Jeff. I've made similar a...This is a great post Jeff. I've made similar arguments concerning the Mesoamerican scholars such as Sorenson that have studied for decades, haven't lost their testimony, but are ignored. Ferguson's elevation is called "the exalted critic", because he broke with an organization or party and reinforces what its critics want to hear. You'll notice this when anybody leaves the Trump White House for example. <br /><br />I also wanted to link to an article I just wrote about how complicated archaeology is. In discussing the entrada of 378 I noticed that essentially everything but the proper nouns are debated by scholars and I made some applications to apologetics: https://wheatandtares.org/2018/01/13/he-that-is-without-doubt-throw-the-first-spear-tikal-378/Morgan Deanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480320552458246756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32797822346166418702018-01-21T12:50:25.844-06:002018-01-21T12:50:25.844-06:00Author of the "dismissal" comment here. ...Author of the "dismissal" comment here. <br /><br />I appreciate your gracious response to my comment. I shouldn't opine when I'm exhausted and should be sleeping. My tone was a bit flippant.<br /><br />I agree that many of the spiritual aspects (or purportedly historical elements) of the Bible are not proven and they never will be. I do think the abundance of archeological evidence gives Biblical texts a credibility that aids faith in the mystery. Somethings will always require faith; indeed the most important thing being faith in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no academic path that will lead one to that belief. <br /><br />Like some of the other commenters, I believe the LDS Church will begin to change its position on BoM historicity. That will be an interesting day should it come to fruition. <br /><br />I am no longer a member, I just couldn't make it work anymore. But in my last years in the Church, I was grateful to have your work as a resource. As you know, it can be difficult to find a place in the LDS church as a nuanced believer. This blog provided a measure of peace as I traveled down that infamous Mormon Rabbit Hole. Ultimately, I came to disagree with your conclusions, but I acknowledge your tremendous efforts in seeking truth. I, for one, cannot find fault in that endeavor. <br /><br /> So thank you, fwiw. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72782378279059356732018-01-21T12:41:55.079-06:002018-01-21T12:41:55.079-06:00Jeff, when I read the article a few days ago my th...Jeff, when I read the article a few days ago my thought was, "This is very well written, but they focused on the wrong person. They should have profiled John Sorenson."<br /><br />But I can understand why they did not do that because it conflicts with their fundamental assumption that facts will always lead someone away from religion.<br /><br />It was interesting to learn more about Thomas Ferguson and to get a different perspective on his life that was not given in the Science article.Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82932393043440663932018-01-21T12:36:45.328-06:002018-01-21T12:36:45.328-06:00Dear Anonymous, Anonymous, and Anonymous,
Since w...Dear Anonymous, Anonymous, and Anonymous,<br /><br />Since we are engaging in handwavy dismissals, I found your responses overly simplistic, tangential, failing to consider complexities, and pulling quotes out of context while glossing over additional statements that contradict your assertions.Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67910918448426058732018-01-21T11:16:27.608-06:002018-01-21T11:16:27.608-06:00Jeff, when are you going to stop chasing your wild...Jeff, when are you going to stop chasing your wild goose? The evidence <i>overwhelmingly</i> demonstrates a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon. The book is not a literal "translation" of actual ancient history; it is instead quite obviously a unique kind of Christian expansion or midrash, expessed in the form of a pseudepigrapic narrative.<br /><br />This is the only position consistent with the evidence, and, now that even faithful Mormon scholars, apologists, and the Church itself are moving toward this truth, there's no reason for you to continue fighting it.<br /><br />Consider respected Mormon scholar <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=v78HDTHd9nwC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Stephen Robinson</a>) saying things like this (albeit about the JST of the Bible rather than the BoM):<br /><br /><i>In 1828 the word </i>translation<i> was broader in its meaning than it is now, and the Joseph Smith </i>translation <i>(JST) should be understood to contain additional revelation, alternate readings, prophetic commentary or midrash, harmonization, clarification and corrections of the original as well as corrections to the original.</i><br /><br />Consider that even <a href="https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_Bible/Joseph_Smith_Translation/As_a_restoration_of_the_original_Bible_text" rel="nofollow">FAIR</a> is now ready to admit something very similar:<br /><br /><i>The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is better thought of as an "inspired commentary" rather than a "translation" ... not a translation in the traditional sense.... The JST is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary" ... [that] involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader."</i><br /><br />Consider the Church itself, on <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng" rel="nofollow">lds.org,</a> offering an explanation for the fact that the BoA does not "directly correlate to the characters on the papyri":<br /><br /><i>Joseph's study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words </i>translator<i> and </i>translation<i>. According to this view, Joseph's translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.</i><br /><br />So, according to the above faithful LDS sources, what are these canonical LDS scriptures? Not literal history, but:<br /><br /><i>Additional revelation, alternate readings, prophetic commentary or midrash, harmonization, clarification.</i><br /><br /><i>Harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader.</i><br /><br /><i>An occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation.</i><br /><br />It's not that big a step from the JST and BoA to the Book of Mormon. <br /><br />Just wait, Jeff. In a decade or two, <i>even among the faithful</i>, things like "Book of Mormon archaeology" and "EModE in the Book of Mormon" will seem as quaintly silly as the story of Zelph the White Lamanite. In a decade or two, the Church itself might throw you and your work under the bus.<br /><br />And beware the sunk-cost fallacy. Just because (like Edward Casaubon of <i>Middlemarch</i>) you've already wasted such an incredible amount of time and energy on an outdated and soon-to-be-abandoned paradigm is no reason to waste even more.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58069857916168202912018-01-21T07:21:17.418-06:002018-01-21T07:21:17.418-06:00One of the best treatments on the barley issue tha...One of the best treatments on the barley issue that troubled Ferguson is from Ether's Cave: <a href="http://etherscave.blogspot.hk/2013/06/book-of-mormon-barley-or-going-against.html" rel="nofollow">Book of Mormon Barley or Going Against the Grain (Howlers #1)</a>, a truly noteworthy case study. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67764005476128053222018-01-21T06:52:27.042-06:002018-01-21T06:52:27.042-06:00"Ferguson's faith crisis was fueled by sl...<i>"Ferguson's faith crisis was fueled by sloppy methodology"<br /><br /><br />This is utterly ridiculous. I chose to not read on from here.</i><br /><br />Shutting out information or views that we don't already share or understand is not the path to knowledge and makes for boring comments and dull debates. But it's fine for the lucky few who were born omniscient. Wish I were so lucky! Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82425651580278067992018-01-21T06:47:36.708-06:002018-01-21T06:47:36.708-06:00"I find your dismissal of Ferguson troubling...."I find your dismissal of Ferguson troubling." I haven't dismissed him. I don't dislike him. I've tried to set the record straight about the significance of his work and the meaning of his disappointments, and the fact that his alleged loss of faith might not be as severe or permanent as critics allege. And I respect his amateur zeal. I can relate to it well and respect those willing to dive into new fields. But we have to know our limits and keep our expectations grounded. <br /><br />As for the mountains of evidence for the Bible, that's an optimistic view. I like and value the evidence that is coming forth. But many if not most Bible scholars question whether such a person as Abraham ever existed, whether there is any evidence for the Exodus, whether there is any evidence that the stories of the Pentateuch took place, etc. And try asking a scientist about evidence for the Garden of Eden. FYI, it was only very recently that shreds of evidence for the very existence of Solomon's temple and the Kingdom of David were found, and there is still much controversy there. <br /><br />But of course we know that there were people in ancient Jerusalem that wrote the Bible and described their history -- that city has kept its name, is not in an unknown location, and has been continuously occupied for millennia. That people lived there and that there was, say, a Sidon and a Bethlehem is not the issue that relates to faith. What is the evidence for the miracles of Moses? What is the evidence that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God who was resurrected? What does archaeology say of that? <br /><br />The destroyed Nephite civilization is an entirely different matter requiring a much different approach to understand and bringing much different expectations. Their record was given miraculously. Finding any evidence for its authenticity has much more significance than finding evidence that Jews were in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. The evidence for Book of Mormon authenticity is much more than the discovery of plausible candidates for the River Laman, the Valley Lamuel, the place Nahom, and the place Bountiful with all its details apparently verified -- that alone is far more than you acknowledge. The evidence involves dramatic Hebraisms and word plays in the text, archaeologically verified ancient names like Alma, extensive chiasmus, verification that stone boxes were used in the Americas to bury sacred relics, verification that putting sacred records on metal was known in the ancient world, Mesoamerican fortifications and patterns of war, and much more. There are many issues worthy of discussion. Not enough to compel you to believe, but plenty to help faith move forward for those willing to exercise faith and give the Book of Mormon a chance. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-9739356321679331362018-01-21T06:33:52.234-06:002018-01-21T06:33:52.234-06:00I'll stand by the statement that archaeology i...I'll stand by the statement that archaeology is complicated. Consider Ferguson's dismay at not finding evidence for ancient figs, grapes, and barley when he went to Mesoamerica, as reported by Larson. That's an amateur speaking far too simplistically and naively. Someone with more experience would recognize that archaeological finds are hit and miss, mostly miss. One could dig inches away from remains of now extinct figs and never know it. One could dig up jars of decomposed fig preserves and not recognize it. You can't just show up, dig around, and expect to hit a jackpot. And especially in a humid, hot region, degradable materials like plant matter are not easily preserved. What can you reasonably expect to find? What kind of searching and testing is needed to adequately rule out a hypothesis? What does it take for the absence of a find to have meaning? And did Ferguson ever discuss the matter with genuine experts on plants in the Americas, to learn about the possible role of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_maxima" rel="nofollow">native fig/ficus trees</a> in the Americas with names like the Hicatee fig (native to Belize) and their possible use anciently? These are complicated issues that Ferguson was not prepared to cope with. <br /><br />But even before we deal with the issue of whether we can detect ancient figs if they existed, or whether cultivars of known native fig trees might have been used anciently, there is the initial question that Ferguson failed to consider: Why should we expect to find figs if the Book of Mormon is true? Ferguson erred by not considering carefully what the Book of Mormon requires. The only mention of figs is in a single quote from the Bible that need not be understood as a description of New World plants. Further, even if there were a statement about Nephites raising figs, we would need to consider what that name might refer to. Cross-cultural practices in naming plants and animals, like archaeology, is complicated and confusing enough just going from, say, Chinese to English today without the added trouble of dealing with cross-cultural naming followed by translation into English from an ancient lost language. <br /><br />Ferguson erred in expecting to easily find grapes and figs, but his concern was more reasonable with respect to barley for that term is used to describe a grain of the Nephites. Indeed, many critics have pointed to the absence of native barley in the Americas as evidence against the Book of Mormon. But again, there are many reasons why this may be a flawed conclusion. Archaeology is a cloudy lens to the past, especially in the New World where a large fraction of archaeological sites remain unexcavated (roughly 90% in Mesoamerica) and where perishable items are rarely preserved. That makes "proving" or "disproving" something like the Book of Mormon to be a very messy and complicated process. While we are still not sure what grain might be meant in the Book of Mormon, it is noteworthy that actual pre-Columbian barley has been found in the New World. It was found in Arizona, but an author reported it may have long been imported from Mexico to the south. See Daniel B. Adams, “Last Ditch Archaeology,” Science 83, Dec. 1983, 32. For updates on this, see <a href="http://www.bmaf.org/node/365" rel="nofollow"><br />Barley and The Book of Mormon: new evidence</a> at BMAF.org.<br /><br />Evidence of ancient barley in the Americas was first reported in 1983, the year that Ferguson died. I hope he got the news. It might have bolstered his faith a bit and reminded him that patience is needed not just as an aid to faith, but an aid to science as well. Science with a cloudy lens and vastly incomplete data is inherently messy. A single find can overturn centuries of dogma sometimes, but lifetimes can pass before the key finds are encountered. There are jackpots out there, but we cannot find them on demand, no matter how sincere our enthusiasm is. It's a lesson worth learning from Thomas Ferguson's life. <br /><br />Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78001958074644885802018-01-20T23:27:41.170-06:002018-01-20T23:27:41.170-06:00I find your dismissal of Ferguson troubling. You c...I find your dismissal of Ferguson troubling. You cite his unrealistic expectations and state, "Reality is complicated. Archaeology is complicated." <br /><br />Jeff, it's not complicated. The Bible, a historical and spiritual text is corroborated by mountains of evidence. Much of that evidence extends beyond the time frames presented in the Book of Mormon. This evidence exists, and was discoverable, because the people who wrote those texts were real; they built cities and they made things. <br /><br />The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is a 3-letter inscription found on an alter... in the Middle-east. The BoM's speaks of highly populated, city building, Judeo-Christian civilizations on the American Continent. And yet, after 100 plus years of digging -- nothing. There is nothing to corroborate the BoM aside from the highly questionable findings of LDS researchers. In fact, the ONLY scholars who still believe the BoM could possibly be historical are Mormon. What does that tell you? Certainly, if there was legitimate evidence to support these Judeo-Christian civilizations, non-LDS scholars would be clamoring to publish these findings. <br /><br />The expectations that led Ferguson into the jungle were born from the BoM itself; those expectations come from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the LDS Prophets who followed. To assert that Ferguson's expectations were unrealistic is to assert that the BoM and Joseph Smith were also unrealistic. <br /><br />You can move the goal posts, but when you do, you are blatantly disregarding and delegitimizing the very words of the Book of Mormon and the validity of Joseph Smith as a Prophet. You can't have it both ways. <br /><br />Reality is complicated and reality is often accompanied by hard truths. It is best to face those truths rather than wishing things could have been some other way. God could not be the author of so much confusion. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18863575102540445822018-01-20T23:20:11.091-06:002018-01-20T23:20:11.091-06:00Jeff, you're really in the weeds here. You thi...Jeff, you're really in the weeds here. You think you have an answer for everything, as usual. It'll be fun to watch you reassess what you think is true in the coming years. Peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6156279708959771722018-01-20T22:23:52.377-06:002018-01-20T22:23:52.377-06:00>Ferguson's faith crisis was fueled by slop...>Ferguson's faith crisis was fueled by sloppy methodology<br /><br /><br />This is utterly ridiculous. I chose to not read on from here. Today i sayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04022243542899980996noreply@blogger.com