I was wondering about the factual part of how Roberts gets from “Smith’s book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon” to “our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon.”
There would seem to be an explanation of the first statement required for the second. Perhaps not, perhaps Roberts doesn’t give one.
Is it just a “heads up” without an apologetic? I’m asking you because you seemed to have a dog in this hunt.
If you don’t know, that’s ok too, no problem. I’m just looking for information, not commenting on “intent of the purpose.”
I’m with you now. I think that’s a fair question. Roberts was an able scholar, and he was not afraid to play ‘devil’s advocate’ to strengthen the Church’s defenses against its critics.