Introduction (Rich).

- I bet you thought I had forgotten all about you!
- No such luck.

- I do have some issues. But then, I also like your "style."
1. It sure "feels" right to me that when Joseph Smith asked G-d (or, was it Jesus) what the correct religion was, G-d would tell him that none were...
2. I had an "epiphany" of my own -- also, when I was 14.
3. Your emphasis on family seems "right on."
4. I haven't read a whole lot of your Book, but a lot of what I have read, struck chords with me. Very often, The Book of Mormon seems to say very plainly and succinctly what the Bible is only vaguely and meanderingly(?) getting at (e.g. Mosiah 16:14 and Alma 32:6). Though perhaps, I'd say the same thing about the Bible if I had read The Book of Mormon first...
5. In general, I like the very thoughtful, pointed and focused approach to leading a righteous and fulfilling life.

- Unfortunately, I also have the "issues" alluded to above.
1. From what outside reading I've done on the matter (written by foolish liberals perhaps), Joseph Smith sounds like a con man.
2. The DNA evidence doesn't look good.
3. That G-d the Father would have a separate physical body other than as the Son, doesn't seem to follow -- especially, considering Mosiah 15:2.
4. I haven't found any archeological support.

- That's a lot to respond to. But as only a suggestion -- maybe, you guys could divide up the four issues between you?
- Anyway, I'll be anxiously awaiting your thoughts on those issues.

- Thanks.


Debate

1A(Rick). From what outside reading I've done on the matter (written by foolish liberals perhaps), Joseph Smith sounds like a con man. (link)
1B(R). The DNA evidence doesn't look good. (Link)
1C(R). That G-d the Father would have a separate physical body other than as the Son, doesn't seem to follow -- especially, considering Mosiah 15:2. (Link)
1D(R). I haven't found any archeological support.

 

1.B&D(R).2(Eric). If scientific proof obviating faith is what is desired, you will likely be frustrated. God has said that He requires of His people that they live by faith and not by sight. If things could be proven there would be no need of faith and the test of faith that is this life would be largely purposeless.

1.B&D(R).2(Dave).
A. As we talked once I agree, and feel that this is common for Christianity in general. I mentioned the BYU Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (http://www.lds.org/conference/display/0,5234,23-1,00.html) who try to compile various evidences of the Mormon theology, but my take is that if skeptic is unwilling (and in fact should not be willing) to join the church because she has discovered evidence in some dig, there is little reason to look for facts to support faith. The scriptures make it clear that we walk by faith. Some people find it nice when some bit of science supports religion (I do too!) but it is not the basis for a testimony--it is not consistant with the Plan of Salvation. None of Jesus' desciples was converted on account of scientific evidence. Peter was blessed because he knew the Christ from the Holy Ghost, not because he saw miracles (Matt 16:17).
B. If you decided you wanted to become a Mormon on account of various evidences, I would be troubled. I would not expect that such a person would do well, serve his fellows, learn and teach by the spirit for long. It is not testimony.
C. We seem to be pleased at all we know about the past due to archaeology, but it may be the tip of the iceburg. The evidences of the Book of Mormon may lie above and/or below water. I am convinced though that G-d has given us what we need.

2.B&D(R).2(JD). Scientific evidence cannot create faith, only a personal witness from the Holy Ghost of the truth can create faith. I agree with what Dave and Eric said below on this. We need to trust that God knows more than we (mankind) know and we must put our trust and faith in him.