Thanks.
Stacy.
At 07:49 PM 11/07/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
/
///
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
Here is a listing of the titles available at the Harold B. Lee library at BYU:
Robinson, S. E. (1982). The Testament of Adam : an examinatio
Do we have any of these in immediate electronic form I could look at on a
web site?
Stacy.
At 08:35 PM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Jim Cobabe wrote:
> Stacy Smith wrote:
> ---
> I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
> them. This one sounds interesting.
> ---
>
Jim Cobabe wrote:
> Stacy Smith wrote:
> ---
> I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
> them. This one sounds interesting.
> ---
>
> Robinson has written three books that are included on my GospeLink
> collection.
>
> ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS?
> by Stephen E. Robinson
Try a search at www.deseretbook.com -- that should work.
Stacy Smith wrote:
> I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
> them. This one sounds interesting.
>
> Stacy.
>
> At 09:45 PM 11/07/2002 +, you wrote:
>
> >This discussion by Stephen Robinson applies with equ
Stacy Smith wrote:
---
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
---
Robinson has written three books that are included on my GospeLink
collection.
ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS?
by Stephen E. Robinson
Bookcraft
Salt Lake City, Utah 1991
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
Stacy.
At 09:45 PM 11/07/2002 +, you wrote:
This discussion by Stephen Robinson applies with equal validity to
questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible...
Naturalistic expla
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
The two covenants: The first is the old covenant, the law of Moses, the
law of carnal commandments, the preparatory gospel, the covenant God made
with Israel, through Moses, to prepare them for the second. The second is
the new covenant,
This is a very interesting comment,a nd sheds a lot of light on the subject at
hand. We often try to read in our own modern, secular ideas of what *we* want the
truth to be, rather than letting the record speak for itself, and we're often
inconsistent. I have on my website a transcript of a talk by
This discussion by Stephen Robinson applies with equal validity to
questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible...
Naturalistic explanations are often useful in evaluating empirical data,
but when the question asked involves non-empirical categories, such as
"Is the Book of Mormon what
At 09:39 AM 11/7/2002, Jim cogently stated:
Seems to me that the contention in this discussion is mostly based on
semantic quibbling.
We're talking about written records of history. Every incident and
story related in these records is entirely symbolic. The words and
letters that comprise a wr
Seems to me that the contention in this discussion is mostly based on
semantic quibbling.
We're talking about written records of history. Every incident and
story related in these records is entirely symbolic. The words and
letters that comprise a written text or an oral narrative are symbol
I appreciate your experience. Just don't think it's such a black and white issue.
We've been told in a number of places in the scriptures that we don't know
everything yet, and may have to exercise patience. In the meantime, we are free
to compare speculations, so long as we do not harm the faith o
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> John,
> The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of
> the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least
> partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is
> literal.
Gary Smith wrote:
> John,
> The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of
> the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least
> partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is
> literal. Signaturi don't want to believe that
Dan, put another way, the difference between us and Biblicists is that they
believe the Bible to *be* the word of God in an existential, substantive, "an und
für sich" (in and of itself) sense, whereas we believe it is a *record* of the
word of God, to be preached from, and interpreted by prophets.
John:
For some reason this line of argument reminds me of those who deny the
historicity of the Book of Mormon:
---
The Book of Mormon doesn't have to be literally a record of ancient America
as long as the principles that it teaches are true. There probably weren't
any Nephites and Lamanite
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> >This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of
> >Mormon
> >deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a
> >result
> >of Joseph Smith's creativity. Thi
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of
Mormon
deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a
result
of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that t
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon
deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a result
of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the
scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to re
20 matches
Mail list logo
