Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
They haven't looked at it because it's not even a close call. There's nothing to examine. This is why it's not an important enough question. There are plenty of academics specializing in antiquity out there searching for a worthy subject in which to make their name or fame. A real ancient record written in an ancient Middle Eastern language discovered in America would be beyond important; it would be earth shattering. Even laying aside the absence of the original artifiact there's nothing here that would even put a legitimate, objective scholar on inquiry notice that he should be examining the B of M text for evidence that it's an ancient record. That no one has thought this worthwhile to do says it all.
I categorically reject your assertion that LDS who have considered the question are "scholarly authorities" in any sense.
I know no such thing. Give me a citation, Archea. I bet you no FARMS work product has been published in any "reputable journal." Show me where FARMS work has been cited in "reputable journals." I don't believe it.
|
If there is nothing to examine, why do you make such a big deal of it?
The LDS Church isn't for you. We got it the first zillion times you've brought it up and we get it now. Time to move on.