Posted on 04/29/2008 6:06:04 AM PDT by restornu
Names, please.
Smith, an uneducated farm boy, claimed he translated the Book of Mormon from ancient gold plates using instruments given him by an angel,
May I assume there's some good reason the "many" are not named?
This one sentence qualifies the whole piece as hogwash.
Guy needs a cup of Mormon Coffee.
Badly.
Excuse me, but this is FreeRepublic where articles are posted and then the floor is opened for discussion, posting of additional corroborating information, etc.
If you don’t think it needs to be discussed, then by all means let’s have the moderator lock this thread. Then if anyone thinks this article is worthy of discussion, someone else will just start a new thread where we can hash out the merits of this fascinating Joseph Smith finding.
This is LDS caucus a closed session it is not open for debate it LDS News.
Please respect this thread!
I have never barge in on other closed threads to disrupt do you not believe in the golden rule!
“I hear an strange echo of the story of an arab man in a cave.”
Indeed.
As did Muhammed, Joseph Smith made it all up. He “wrote the book” by himself.
Fortunately for us, he left out the parts about jihad.
- John
Who are the scholars mentioned in the article?
I would also be interested in a line by line comparison of the ancient writings that were apparently discovered recently to the specific claims of Smith that historians traditionally dispute.
One of the things that ended my study of Mormon teaching was that archeology and other fields fo study seemed to very easily discredit not the doctrine revealed to Smith, but the story of how it made it from the Holy Land into Smith’s hands. If scholars have actually found objective proof to the contrary, that would be very interesting.
Open forum, open discussion. Take it to your own web site if that’s what you want.
It is a thread claiming to set forth scientific knowledge in the field of archaeology and philology.
Flaming any thread is never a good idea, and it is surely not flaming to inquire as to the reliability of the scientific data and alleged scholarly consensus put forward on the thread.
For example, the article says: "Anciently, baptism was known as a 'sealing' to go to heaven, he said."
Among which ancients was baptism known as "sealing"? Certainly not to the authors of the New Testament, who never use the word "seal" (sphragis) to describe baptism (baptisma).
Fortunately for us, he left out the parts about jihad.
3. “Closed” threads on the Religion Forum include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. The header of the thread should make it obvious that the thread is closed, i.e. like a church meeting behind closed doors. Such assemblies will not be disturbed. Any challenges or ridicule will be removed. Any thread can be designated a caucus - e.g. labeled as a “[Catholic Caucus]” or “[LDS Caucus]” - provided that neither the article nor any of the posts challenge [*see footnote] or ridicule any other confession. These are “safe harbors” for those who are easily offended or are ill equipped to defend their own confession.
It is disingenuous to complain that your confession is being maligned when you are NOT using the caucus designation to protect the thread from challenges!
Religion Moderator web page
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
I have ridiculed no one.
What I have done is asked for more background on the archaeological and philological claims made in the article.
“Most of the writings which have now been found were secret anciently and held back from the people until they proved their worthiness. “
Sounds like these unnamed “scholars” found some more Gnostic writings.
Yes, I agree. This is not a typical "devotional" when such claims as "Anciently, the fountain of Christian knowledge was Egypt..." are made. Certainly posters can continue to be respectful, but to make the claim that the "fountainhead" of Christianity and its knowledge is Egypt is way off base.
Certainly, what the article states--Some of the best early Christian records were found in Egypt, where they survived because of the climate--is true...as the Coptic Christian church in Egypt has done a good job in preserving artifacts.
I think the problem is, in part, this new FR format that throws both headline and text of comments up on the screen, regardless of any caucus designations.
To see something like this article scroll by and expect people to ignore the challenge of it is not realistic, or even fair, despite any protective notion of a caucus designation. I mean, honestly, if somebody posted an article titled “Conclusive Proof That Joseph Smith Was Full of Crap,” I wouldn’t expect LDS members to see that and not come in and challenge it, even if it was tagged “Christian Caucus” or even something like “Anti-Mormon Caucus” that supposedly shields the piece from debate.
Listen, you've picked an article that (a) talks about pre-Mormonism (pre-1830 history); and (b) pretends to speak for Christianity about where the "fountainhead" of our knowledge is (claiming Egypt).
Do you mean to seriously tell us that if I posted an article saying the true source of Mormonism wasn't Joseph Smith--that its "fountainhead" were other sources--that Mormons wouldn't be able to comment as long as I attached "caucus" status to it?
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.