Posted on 03/19/2009 1:58:13 PM PDT by colorcountry
ping
I’ve always wondered how/why the BOM was translated out of Reformed Egyptian into King James English .... you would think it would have been written down in 1820’s English/American idiom ...
It really doesn’t make any sense, if one takes the effort to think about it.
That’s what I think ... there are other problems but this one is foremost in my mind ...
Thanks for posting this. I have referred to this several times in the last month, but did not have the specific reference.
I posted this article in answer to the LDS Caucus article that was just posted citing Book of Mormon Evidences.
It is interesting that they want to tout ‘evidence’ but they simply can’t allow any discussion by dissenters to take place.
Well, this is the place. How strong is their “evidence.”
Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon
by Sharon Lindbloom
http://www.answeringlds.org/index.html?artSmithsonian.html
Late in 1998 the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS - an LDS research group operating under the umbrella of the LDS Church) included a sidebar in their Journal of Book of Mormon Studies titled “Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon Revised” (volume 7, number 1, 1998, p. 77). The article began,
For many years the Smithsonian Institution has given out a routine response to questions posed to them about their view of the relation between the Book of Mormon and scientific studies of ancient American civilizations. Statements in their handout pointed out what somebody at the Institution claimed were contradictions between the text of the scripture and what scientists claim about New World cultures.
Continuing, the article mentioned that LDS anthropologist John Sorenson critiqued the Smithsonian statement in 1982, pointing out the “errors of fact and logic” which it allegedly contained. In 1995 Dr. Sorenson revised his critique and, according to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, recommended that the Smithsonian “completely modify their statement to bring it up-to-date scientifically.”
FARMS noted that it’s officers later spoke with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes. More recently there has been some question from certain members of Congress about whether it is appropriate for a government agency to take a stand regarding a religious book.
According to FARMS, in March of 1998 the Director of Communications at the Smithsonian Institution began using a two paragraph response to “queries about the Book of Mormon” (see below) which basically states that the Smithsonian does not use the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide.
After reading the FARMS article I was curious about the absence of the reasons the Smithsonian did not use the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide. The previous statement offered by the Smithsonian had listed several specific points of contention between science and Book of Mormon claims (among them the physical type of the American Indian; the Book of Mormon’s anachronistic assertions of New World pre-Colombian use of Old World metals, domesticated food plants, animals, and other items; the absence of any confirmed relationship between the archeological remains in Mexico and remains in Egypt; the absence of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World).
Therefore, I wrote to the Smithsonian to inquire about the new statement and their reasons for the changes. Following is the text of my letter to the Smithsonian Institution; following that is the text of the letter I received in response.
3 February 1999
Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
Dear Sir or Madam:
It has come to my attention that the Smithsonian Institution has issued a new “Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon.” I would appreciate it very much if you would provide me a copy of this Statement using the enclosed pre-addressed, pre-stamped envelope.
I would also like to know what has precipitated the necessity of a new Statement. Is there anything in the Smithsonian Institution’s previous “Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon” (the copy I have is designated SIL-76 1988) which has been proven inaccurate by subsequent research? If so, would you please instruct me on what those inaccuracies may be?
Thank you very much for your help and kind attention to my inquiry.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Sharon A. Lindbloom
9 February 1999
Dear Ms. Lindbloom:
Thank you for your letter. We still stand by our former statement on the Book of Mormon. It was a decision of the Smithsonian’s central Office of Public Affairs to simplify the statement to respond to general questions regarding the Smithsonian’s use of the Book of Mormon. Below is the statement we presently distribute for these general inquiries.
Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution’s alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you may have received to the contrary is incorrect.
I hope I have answered your question.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Ann Kaupp, Head
Anthropology Outreach Office
National Museum of Natural History
...ps - I remember on LDS missionary telling me the reason was it sounded “more Biblical” ....
It’s also interesting how they use the Bible to support their theories ... they’ll cite something from the BOM or an LDS writer then cite a Biblical passage showing they agree ...
If I want to put my trust in the arm of flesh, and believe everything science tells me, then I'd be no different than the majority of this secular world.
No thanks.
One would think. It reads more like someone had read the King James Version and then wrote it.
It was your brother The Don who posted the article concerning arcaeological “evidences” for the Book of Mormon.
I challenge you to go post this very statement on his thread.
Thanks for clarifying the latest response by the Smithsonian.
Mark Twain (not the one here) wrote that the BOM was chloroform in print ....
LOL
Because it was a stolen manuscript for a fiction written by a preacher who valued the KJV
Details, details.....Don’t confuse them with the facts.
One copy of book made of gold that no one but one man has ever seen and has never been produced as evidence, has told us so. How can you argue with that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.