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.
|
I will look up some of the FARMS articles on a few issues that have been published in reputable biblical journals.
You categorically rejecting it means nothing.
You are capable, more than capable lawyer. You are a capable Roman historian and a gifted author, but your understanding of LDS principles and its history as well as scholarship surrounding LDS issues is embarrassing naive and simpleton.
I can anticipate your retort when I cite the articles which have been published.