https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-fa ... uth-183057We ought to be prepared to answer every gospel question we possibly can in the spirit of Peter’s injunction to the Saints: “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). While we can answer many questions, sometimes the appropriate answer is, “I don’t know.” This should not be surprising. Rather, we should expect some unanswered questions for at least the following reasons:
One, God requires us to have faith. Mormon was about to record some “greater things,” when he said, “but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people” (3 Nephi 26:10-11).
No Tad, that isn't what people want. Tad is shying away from the fact that not all questions are equal. For instance "What is the meaning of life?" and "Why are KJV Bible extracts found in The Book of Mormon?" are different types of enquiry. One is philosophical, one is objective and evidential. People "in essence" want answers to those questions for which one can reasonably expect an answer. Such as "Why did the Church keep secret a hoard of >$100 billion?" and "Why is the Church only transparent about the things that are already in the public domain?" and, the aforementioned KJV content in the Book of Mormon - why is it in there Tad?Even the Savior did not have the answer to every question during His mortal ministry. While stretched out upon the cross He cried out, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). There was no immediate answer at this crisis moment, but His faith in the Father never waned.
Faith, by its very nature, means we will not have all the answers. Nonetheless, some people “demand” the underlying rationale for every command or event in life — in essence they want a religion without faith, but they can’t have it — because no such thing exists.
Really Tad? Cement & Barley?Four, historic and scientific truths often come in installments and therefore in the interim there may exist a seeming conflict between history or science on one hand and religion on the other, but in the end, they will be in perfect accord. We see this, for example, with regard to archaeological discoveries. For years, critics claimed that cement and barley did not exist in Book of Mormon times — they were anachronisms that “proved” the Book of Mormon a fraud. Then, after the passage of many years, archaeology revealed the real truth — cement and barley were discovered to have existed in Book of Mormon times. The question that had raised doubt in the skeptic, became one more confirmation for the man and woman of faith.
http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-morm ... didntexistApologist Robert R. Bennett of FARMS postulates that references to "barley" could refer to Hordeum pusillum, also known as "Little Barley", a species of grass native to the Americas. The seeds are edible, and this plant was part of the Pre-Columbian Eastern Agricultural Complex of cultivated plants used by Native Americans. Hordeum pusillum was unknown in Mesoamerica, where there is no evidence of pre-Columbian barley cultivation, but evidence exists that this plant was domesticated in North America in the Woodland periods contemporary with mound builder societies (early centuries A.D.).
So is Tad promoting the idea that The Book of Mormon events took place in North America? Or is he just cherry picking pieces of information and not telling his readers the whole truth about them as it doesn't suit the belief he wants to hold onto and promote?