Posted on 05/27/2010 6:44:33 AM PDT by Colofornian
The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated. Scholars gathered in Provo, Utah, to discuss their theories about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Some placed the Nephite capital city Zarahemla in Mesoamerica, others in South America. Others argued for a setting in the American heartland.
The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attended the two-day Book of Mormon convention. Although he found the discussion interesting, he was obviously concerned that people were getting a little too worked up about their geographic theories. He decided to intervene.
The Book of Mormon geography conference was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903. But the advice President Joseph F. Smith gave at that conference 107 years ago could apply equally to current disputes over Book of Mormon geography.
"President Smith spoke briefly," the Deseret News account summarized, "and expressed the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel."
More recently, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how "Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography."
But the lack of an official position hasn't squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed — and not-so-informed — amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.
But something is rotten in Zarahemla — wherever it may be.
In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.
In one corner is the more-established idea of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. This theory places the events of the book in a limited geographic setting that is about the same size as ancient Israel. The location is in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The person most often associated with this theory is John L. Sorenson, a retired professor of anthropology at BYU, and the author of "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and a series of articles on Book of Mormon geography that ran in the Ensign magazine in September and October 1984. A new book, tentatively titled "Mormon's Codex," is in the process of being published.
In the other corner is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American "heartland" setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it also is limited in area — but not quite as limited. Its symbolic head is Rod L. Meldrum and, more recently, Bruce H. Porter. Meldrum and Porter are the co-authors of the book "Prophecies and Promises," which promotes the heartland setting.
It wouldn't be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories — that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.
The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory's mantra: "Joseph knew."
Joseph Smith made several statements that can be interpreted to have geographic implications. Proponents of a North American setting see these statements as authoritative and based in revelation. Mesoamerican theorists think that Joseph Smith's ideas about geography expanded over time and included approval of at least some connection to Central America.
To the heartlander, Joseph's knowledge about Book of Mormon locations is seen as proof of his divine calling and a testament to his being the chosen translator/expert of the book. Joseph didn't just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions — or for charity.
"The way I look at Joseph Smith's statements is that he either knew or he didn't know. If he knew, he knew by revelation. And if he didn't know, you've got to ask yourself why he said the things that he said," Porter said. "If he didn't know, was he trying to show off? If he really didn't know, why was he telling people?
"My feeling is that Joseph Smith did not lie," Porter said.
If you don't agree with this line of reasoning, by implication, you think that Joseph lied.
"My authority is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon," Porter said. "Most of your Mesoamerican theorists, their authority is John Sorenson and Matthew Roper. They picked those as their authority at the neglect of Joseph Smith."
Matthew P. Roper, a research scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute Of Religious Scholarship, naturally doesn't like this characterization. "They seem to be trying to elevate a question of lesser importance, Book of Mormon geography, to the level of the doctrines of the church," Roper said. "And even though they give lip service to things like they know the church has not given an official position, they turn around and say, 'All these people are dismissing Joseph Smith.' "
It is somewhat ironic that believing that Joseph did not "know" also supports Joseph as a prophet. The more Joseph's assumptions about Book of Mormon geography prove to be wrong, the greater a testimony that he did not write the book himself. "We assume," Roper said, "that since Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, and that it was translated by the gift and power of God, that he would know everything about the book that an author would. I would submit that the two are not the same thing. I could translate the 'Wars of Caesar' and not know anything about ancient Gaul or the different tribes."
When Meldrum's theories first became popularized through firesides and a DVD he produced, the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) took notice and responded with gusto.
"The way he said things, they attack that more than they attack the evidence that he presented," Porter said.
Scott Gordon, president of FAIR, would not disagree. "We view this as a steadying-of-the-ark issue. We really don't care where he picks for his theory on where the Book of Mormon can take place," Gordon said. "What we care about that he is implying that the church is not following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Which means the church leadership, the prophet — everything is not following. And we think that is a very, very dangerous position."
"They are getting really worried because they are seeing this is becoming a movement. That's their words," Meldrum said. "They are just saying it's a movement because they are getting a lot of flak from people who are seeing the DVD and the information and thinking, 'You know what, this makes a lot of sense.' "
But supporters also see the heartland theory as an inspired movement that will transform the LDS Church: "(V)ery few people out there fully grasp the magnitude of this movement and the powerful influence that it is having and the sweeping nature of its message," wrote one prominent supporter. "It will sweep the church and most LDS will not even understand what happened until it's past. … Time is our friend."
A movement — about geography?
Historian Ronald O. Barney has seen similar attitudes in some people supporting Mesoamerica. One person described a particular Mesoamerican book as "life-transforming" and that the book "changed the way I think about everything."
Life-transforming?
"People are hanging their faith on evidence of Book of Mormon peoples," Barney said.
"I just think that this way of thinking about our religion is such a waste of time," Barney said, "It almost suggests we don't trust the Holy Ghost. Not only are we worried that he won't reveal to people the truthfulness of the book, but we want to augment it — even if we have to bend and distort — so that there can be no mistake about its truthfulness."
Meldrum said he doesn't hang his testimony on the heartland theory.
"I don't know that this geography is true. I've said that many times and I want to make sure that that's clear. If President Monson was to tomorrow say, 'You know what? I've had a revelation and the Book of Mormon occurred in Indonesia,' you know what? I'm with him." Meldrum said with a laugh.
John L. Sorenson stands by the Mesoamerican theory, but also the Prophet.
"(Geography) wasn't very important to him and he didn't know much about it," Sorenson said. "Joseph knew what he knew — and what he knew was far more important than geography."
Joseph's nephew, President Joseph F. Smith, would probably agree.
I have as part of my background reading for you. Testimonies are a dime a dozen John and supply absolutely nothing positive to archaeological findings - other than a deep belief that 'next time' they'll get there. It further doesn't surprise me - since TBMs feel, not fact, things.
collectively have had wonderful, learning experiences, both archaeological and otherwise
Without a single, legitimate scientific paper produced in a professional journal for peer review.
Having today personally conversed with Tim Brown and David Brown of the Team, I know that they think for themselves.
Think for themselves - or is their thinking filtered through the a priori dictum that the bom is true, therefore everything proves it - even though everything disproves it - cognitive dissonance.
Your speed in replying suggests that you did not fully read the article on the City of Nephi that I put a link to. In my opinion, that article has numerous tantalizing details that any honest seeker of truth would want to at least consider. When 6 out of 9 stelae can be related to Book of Mormon accounts, we are talking details, not fluff. Tie that City of Nephi article in with David Brown's "Bountiful Historical Society" article and we have a legitimate theory that deserves to be considered in an intelligent way. Archaeologists with no interest in the Book of Mormon have proposed in professional journals an explanation for coordinated stelae that makes David Brown's theory for coordinated stelae plausible.
You are free to speculate all you want to. I have met and talked with the men in question, and my assessment of them is that they think for themselves.
Are you a qualified psychologist?
Do they have any degrees in archaeology?
Spiritual experiences of an uplifting character are too precious in one's walk through mortal life to be characterized as "a dime a dozen". What a glorious thing it is to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, or feel an angel hold one's hand almost immediately after earnestly praying to God, or being told that when one prayed for someone in pain, that person felt a diminishing of pain at the same time. These are not "a dime a dozen" experiences. These are what turns one's faith in God into knowledge.
When the basis for that 'testimony' is a spurious and poorly written work of fiction from the 1800s that claims to be the 'true' history of the new world, the foundation of that 'testimony' is questionable. Oh they may be sincere - but they are sincerely wrong. By applying the standard you've just presented - all religions of the world could be deemed equally as valid as mormonism in all its variants.
Are you a qualified psychologist?
Are you suggesting that only qualified psychologists can sense whether or not persons are able to think for themselves?
Do they have any degrees in archaeology?
Are you suggesting that persons without degrees in archaeology are incapable of thinking for themselves?
lends or takes away the credibility of the evaluation.
Are you suggesting that persons without degrees in archaeology are incapable of thinking for themselves?
Well certainly such men who are affiliated with such an archaeological foundation of such globally acknowledged reputation would certainly have an advanced degree in the field they 'work' in.
You responded: "Are you a qualified psychologist?"
Since that response implies that I do not have the ability to discern whether or not people I talk to think for themselves, I asked you: "Are you suggesting that only qualified psychologists can sense whether or not persons are able to think for themselves?"
Your response "lends or takes away the credibility of the evaluation" does not answer the question in a way that can be clearly understood.
From BYU of course...
You appear to have the same bias towards the bom as these gentlemen. An independent person without the same overt attachment may well come to an alternative assessment. A psychologist may see something even more challenging in two men chasing a fictitious story treasure as something entirely else.
I had a bias AGAINST the Book of Mormon when I first read it in an attempt to discover statements in it that would prove that the book contains false religious teaching. To my astonishment, the book does not promote any unrighteousness. By the time I finished my first reading of the book, I knew that it is faith-promoting, and not the opposite.
But when I began investigating the Mormon church that publishes the Book of Mormon, I found doctrines that are contrary to the fullness of the gospel taught in the book. The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy in no uncertain terms. The Mormon church once practised polygamy. The fullness of the gospel does not include baptism for the dead. The Mormon church still practises baptism for the dead.
In reading about the Mormon church I saw a reference to an translation of the Bible by Joseph Smith, the translator of the Book of Mormon. I discovered that this translation was not published by the Mormon church. It was published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
My first visit to an RLDS church was while I was in the U.S. Navy. I had come specifically to buy a copy of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. An elderly couple noticed my interest and bought for me a set of the three standard books of the RLDS. I was astonished that they would give books to a total stranger. An even more elderly man, observing all of this, approached me and said, "Make sure you read the Book of Genesis in the Inspired Version!"
When I got back to the hotel I was staying in, I read Joseph Smith's expanded version of Genesis, which I found to be extremely enlightening. While still in the U.S. Navy, I experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit in an RLDS church, and I was soon baptised.
When I got out of the Navy, I had the world headquarters of the RLDS in Independence, Missouri, within driving distance of my home in Kansas City. During the first World Conference of the church that I attended, I saw firsthand how the RLDS admits revelations into its scriptures. The President had presented an inspired document that caused much commotion, since part of it dealt with missionary work in societies in which polygamy is practised. Since it basically allowed participants in polygamy to be members of the church as long as no more plural marriages are entered into, only after lengthy debate was the revelation approved. The wisdom of the revelation was gradually proven as the membership in the polygamous area became monogamous.
"Common consent" is the process by which the RLDS, now the Community of Christ, determines her canon of scripture. By that standard, Joseph Smith's "revelations" on baptism for the dead, never practised by the RLDS, were finally removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, because they had never received conference approval, nor would they have received approval, because they are contrary to the fullness of the gospel in the Book of Mormon.
Oh, the gentlemen I met in the Buckner congregation, who very much think for themselves, don't need a bias for the Book of Mormon, since they are aware of massive evidence that the book is what it claims to be.
Innoculus, just like entry-level drugs.
But when I began investigating the Mormon church that publishes the Book of Mormon, I found doctrines that are contrary to the fullness of the gospel taught in the book. The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy in no uncertain terms. The Mormon church once practised polygamy. The fullness of the gospel does not include baptism for the dead. The Mormon church still practises baptism for the dead.
LOL.
In reading about the Mormon church I saw a reference to an translation of the Bible by Joseph Smith, the translator of the Book of Mormon. I discovered that this translation was not published by the Mormon church. It was published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
ROTFLAICGU. How are things translated John - via a smooth stone placed in a hat, then stuffing your face into the hat? How did smith 'translate' the JST John? What Greek and Hebrew MS did he use, or does a stone in a hat work just as well on that? I find it exceptionally funny that RLDS do not recognize the book of abraham either - yet accept the bom and jst *snort*
Oh, the gentlemen I met in the Buckner congregation, who very much think for themselves, don't need a bias for the Book of Mormon, since they are aware of massive evidence that the book is what it claims to be.
Oh, and just where is the 'massive evidence' located at for other non-bom archaeologists to evaluate John. LOL, if such 'evidence' is present, there are dozens of non-bom archaeologists who have been trying for years to prove external contacts between mesoamericans and egyptians, etc who would love to get access and publish IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS. No, it appears that the only 'massive evidence' is strictly in their minds, not on the ground.
In the realm of liguistics much progress has been made on the Book of Mormon.
1. Computer analysis of the words making up the Book of Mormon. These have shown that the Book of Mormon was not written by any of the 19th century persons that doubters have suggested might have been the author, such as Joseph Smith, Sydney Rigdon, Solomon Spaulding, etc. They have also shown that the writings of Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, etc. have differing characteristics, as believers would expect, but doubters would not expect. These differences in authorship are evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual translation.
2. Hebraisms. These are so pervasive that the evidence is overwhelming that the Book of Mormon was written by Hebrew-speaking persons. Joseph Smith and transcribers of the two Book of Mormon manuscripts, the dictated and the printer's, were not aware of the significance of Hebraisms. By comparing what remains of the dictated manuscript with the printer's manuscript and with the 1830 and 1837 printings of the book, it is evident that some original Hebraisms were dropped. Double negatives that strengthen the negative is a Hebraism that was sometimes dropped, because in English double negatives can cancel each other out. Pervasive Hebraisms are evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual translation.
3. No erasers. Since the Book of Mormon was engraved into metal plates, if an error in writing was started, rather than discard the plate and start over, the authors found means of changing directions to correct the error. The means for getting back on track include: "I mean", "or I would say", "or in other words", "but behold I mistake", "I do not mean", "or", "or rather", etc. These midstream corrections are evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual translation.
Then of course there is the progressing archaeology in Mesoamerica. Isolated similarities with things mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be dismissed as coincidental. But when many items in one specific location correspond with many items mentioned for a specific location in the Book of Mormon, the correspondencies should not be dismissed until they can be dismissed, if they ever can be dismissed. Multiple correspondencies are being discovered in specific locations for the Book of Mormon cities of Nephi, Zarahemla, and Bountiful. A strong Christian influence is being found in Palenque, which more and more is looking like Bountiful, where Jesus Christ appeared and taught the people in fulfillment of his New Testament promise: "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" (John 10:16).
The Book of Mormon was in print before Joseph Smith founded a church. The book is to a large degree independent of Latter Day Saint church organizations. There are ministers with no connection to them who teach and preach from the Book of Mormon.
Is not as conclusive as you would wish John. If you are refering to the 1979 BYU study - it has been debunked by statisticians at Bristol Polytechnic. A similar multivariate analysis technique conducted by a British non-Mormon, David I. Holmes. He concluded that the author of Doctrine and Covenants and of The Book of Mormon was the same person, Joseph Smith. A 2008 computer analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon compared to writings of possible authors of the text shows a high probability that the authors of the book were Spalding, Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery; concluding that "our analysis supports the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically, we find strong support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship.
Beyond computers "Studies of the Book of Mormon", written in the 1930s by B. H. Roberts, the assistant church historian and a member of the First Quorum of Seventies, in which he concludes that Joseph Smith very likely used Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews.
2. Hebraisms.
One of the main plagerism of the bom is from the bible - yep great source for stylistically 'hebraism' to appear. Someone imitating Biblical style would undoubtably pick up these "Hebraisms," probably without even considering them Hebraisms. But then we are talking about Reformed Egyptian aren't we - so any 'hebraisms' had to go through TWO translations. Probabilities of success - zero. Same 'hebraisms' are also found in the Spalding MS and "View of the Hebrews". Sorry John, if anything it proves smith copied it from other sources - namely the bible.
3. No erasers
Nice theory - but impossible to prove since there are no plates available to examine for this 'method'. Your examples can be more easily explained by the probable fact that smith's mind wandered during the creation of the bom, not from any so-called insertions in the plates.
Multiple correspondencies are being discovered in specific locations for the Book of Mormon cities of Nephi, Zarahemla, and Bountiful.
Sorry John, please show referenced in professional journals where specific bom locations have been translated directly from mayan glyphs. . . . . . Rather it is the super positioning of these fictitious bom cities over the real mayan cities.
A strong Christian influence is being found in Palenque,
All unsubstantiated by anyother source but Steede - right. The Book of Mormon was in print before Joseph Smith founded a church. The book is to a large degree independent of Latter Day Saint church organizations. There are ministers with no connection to them who teach and preach from the Book of Mormon.
the bom printed March 1830, church founded April 1830 - wow, one whole month difference John. The 4000+ changes to the bom have been made by slc lds as well as additional changes you've referred to. Hardly independent as to maintain the 'authenticity' of the book, changes were coordinated at the leadership level of the church. "ministers" using the bom are either splitting frog hairs (splinter groups from slc) or grossly ignorant and probably use the Bhagavad Gita as well.
Are you just making things up as a joke? This is complete nonsense and is self-contradictory. You can't have any "peer-reviewed professional journal" claiming without historical evidence to back it up that three men, Spaulding, Rigdon, and Cowdery authored the Book of Mormon, and then ALSO find "strong support support for the Spaulding-Rigdon theory of authorship! Which is it?
I believe that you are just making this up. Why? Because the novel of Spaulding was long ago discovered and published by the RLDS, to put an end the rumors that the Book of Mormon was based on a novel by Spaulding, since there are no correspondencies. No serious set of scholars would have tried to resurrect a long-ago refuted theory.
Notice your lack of logic. First you tell about a supposed 2008 computer analysis. You yourself must not believe it, if it even exists. For then you mention Ethan Smith. Roy Weldon compared the Book of Mormon to "View of the Hebrews" and came up with a whole laundry list of major differences between them. The "Views" could not have inspired the Book of Mormon. They don't mesh.
I think you are desperately grasping for straws to hold on to.
I don't Roberts was the assistant Church Historian for the Baptist, they don't have a First Quorum of Seventies...
I could also waste a few electrons on what a theory is, but...
Two separate computer analysis of the bom John - just goes to show you that your computer analysis is not worth the electrons killed as part of the analysis. Garbage in - garbage out John, and the bottom line is the study you cited was the pinnicle of GIGO.
AFA peer-reviewed professional journal, one of the studies I cited was published in by Oxford University Press for the Association for History and Computing.
I believe that you are just making this up.
Nope, not in the least John.
Because the novel of Spaulding was long ago discovered and published by the RLDS, to put an end the rumors that the Book of Mormon was based on a novel by Spaulding, since there are no correspondencies. No serious set of scholars would have tried to resurrect a long-ago refuted theory.
No, that hasn't put an end to the story - since witnesses stated that the ms found was not the one they were referring to but another by Spaulding. Besides, there are more parallels in the ms published by the RLDS to more than adequately suggest that smith was influenced by it.
No serious set of scholars would have tried to resurrect a long-ago refuted theory.
Just like no serious scholars accept the bom as the true history of mesoamerica
Roy Weldon compared the Book of Mormon to "View of the Hebrews" and came up with a whole laundry list of major differences between them. The "Views" could not have inspired the Book of Mormon. They don't mesh.
mormon elder Roberts differs with Weldon then, as does David Persuitte, author of "Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon". There were other books and stories of the early 1800s on the theme that native americans were descendents of Hebrew groups who emigrated from Israel and came to the Americas and that there were originally two groups of Hebrews in the Americas: the faithful group was exterminated by a second group who had abandoned their faith. The following works were among the most popular expressing the Hebrew origin of the Indians at the period before the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830:
Thomas Thorowgood. Jews in America, or, Probabilities that the Americans are of that Race. London, 1650.
James Adair. The History of the American Indians. London, 1775.
Charles Crawford. An Essay upon the Propagation of the Gospel, in which there are facts to prove that many of the Indians in America are descended from the Ten Tribes. Philadelphia, 1799.
Elias Boudinot. A Star in the West; or, a Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Tribes of Israel. Trenton, NJ: Published by D. Fenton, S. Hutchinson, and J. Dunham, 1816.
Ethan Smith. View of the Hebrews. Poultney, VT: Printed and Published by Smith & Shute, 1823.
___________. View of the Hebrews; or, The Tribes of Israel in America. Poultney, VT: Published and Printed by Smith & Shute, 1825, 2d ed.
Josiah Priest. The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed. Albany, NY, 1825.
So you see the over arching theme of the bom was already common place when smith conjured up his story - which he later tried to sell the copywrite for - imagine God wanting him to do that. . . .
H. Michael Marquardt has also demonstrated that bom is dependent upon other existing sources in that day for its composition. Since over 20% is directly copied from the bible - scribal errors and all. It also extracts American history and slabs it into the bom. Marquardt also notes the heavy paralles with the previously listed existing works at that time. Here is a specific example - from James Adair, "A History of the American Indians" ("Observations, and arguments, in proof of the American Indians being descended from the Jews") states in part
Through the whole continent, and in the remotest woods, are traces of their ancient warlike disposition. We frequently met with great mounds of earth, either of a circular, or oblong form, having a strong breast-work at a distance around them, made of the clay which had been dug up in forming the ditch on the inner side of the inclosed ground, and these were their forts of security against an enemy ... About 12 miles from the upper northern parts of the Choktah country, there stand ... two oblong mounds of earth...in an equal direction with each other ... A broad deep ditch inclosed those two fortress, and there they raised an high breast-work, to secure their houses from the invading enemy.
Notice the almost exact same wording found in Alma chapters 48,49,50 and 53. Adair's book had the four words, "their forts of security." These identical words are found in the book of Alma. Many other exact phrases are also present - can you spot them too John?
This idea of brass plates being buried could have come from James Adair's book. On pages 178-179, we find this information:
In the Tuccabatches ... are two brazen tables, and five of copper. They esteem them so sacred as to keep them constantly in their holy of holies ... Old Bracket, an Indian ... gave the following description of them, viz. they must only be handled by particular people .... He only remembered three more, which were buried with three of his family ...
I think you are desperately grasping for straws to hold on to.
No, the ones grasping for straws are those trying to defend the authenticity of the bom from a linguistic viewpoint. As proven in this short post, the storyline of the bom was already popular in other books at and before the time the bom was written. That in addition to the 20+% copied from the bible (scribal errors and all), smith lifted details, phrases and ideas from these other books.
In closing, Mormon Apostle B. H. Roberts made these observations:
But now to return ... to the main theme of this writing — viz., did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin ...
The material in Ethan Smith's book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon ...
Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact be merely coincidence? (pages 240, 242)
To plagerize words from your Roy Weldon - time is running out - on the bom as it fails the test at every turn and corner of examination.
B H Roberts was a mormon and was eventually one of the 12 by the time he died IIRC.
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.