and he is very friendly towards mormonism in this article.

knowing his style, he will pull some sort of switch on the reader. he will either 1) switch to mormonism, or 2) switch his tone to one of sarcasm towards mormonism. this is just my guess.

we shall see.

vt

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/06/05/199848.html

I'll pass

But you might learn something!

Double post

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 6/5/2006 5:28p).]

Article No. 2 (It didn't take him long to let us know what he believes.):

quote:

---

The Golden Plates of the Angel Moroni supposedly disappeared into heaven never to be seen again after Smith transcribed The Book of Mormon. This is but one of the evidentiary problems faced by the Latter-day Saints (LDS). The dearth of archeological evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism is also disturbing given that the events described in the book allegedly took place as late as the fifth century A.D.

. . .

While archeology has failed to substantiate The Book of Mormon, the veracity of the Bible - both the Old and New Testaments - has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent years.

Sometimes the discoveries confirming the Bible have been general, such as the evidence suggesting that the world did, in fact, have a single language at one time. Another example is the relatively recent evidence that the Hittites really did exist. Those who said for years that no such people ever existed must now contend with concrete evidence found in modern-day Turkey.

. . .

Aside from the wealth of archeological evidence that sets the Bible apart from The Book of Mormon, there is another issue of confirmation by prophecy. The predictions in Psalms - that the hands and feet of Jesus would be pierced, that his bones would be out of joint and that lots would be cast for his garments - are amazing. Zechariah also speaks of the piercing of Jesus in a way that clearly foretells his crucifixion.

. . .

As it stands, the Bible I read as a child stands alone as a document that has the support of prophets looking into the future and archeologists looking into the past. The Book of Mormon has neither.

I wish I could classify the fraud of The Book of Mormon as the thing that bothers me the most about Joseph Smith. But, unfortunately, it is not. And, unfortunately, an enumeration of my other problems with Joseph Smith will have to wait until next week’s column.

---

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/06/06/199988.html

[This message has been edited by Patriarch (edited 6/6/2006 2:25p).]