Not remembering this discovery I checked Wikipedia to get filled in. I find that the church article is not only all wrong about Book of Mormon provenance but is wrong about the example used. (appropriate in a way)
The New Yorker article discussed the troubling circumstances in which Kemp attributed this work to Leonardo. But apart from this, strong indications are going against the hypothesis of authenticity, and the attribution to Leonardo has been challenged by a number of scholars who showed interest.[2][30][35] Among the reasons for doubting its authorship are the lack of provenance prior to the 20th century – unusual given Leonardo's renown dating from his own lifetime, as well as the fame of the purported subject's family[35] – and the fact that it was on vellum. Only once did Leonardo use vellum and old sheets of it are easily acquired by forgers.[2] Leonardo scholar Pietro C. Marani discounts the significance of the drawing being made by a left-handed artist, noting that imitators of Leonardo's work have emulated this characteristic in the past.[35] Marani is also troubled by use of vellum, "monotonous" detail, use of colored pigments in specific areas, firmness of touch and lack of craquelure.[35] A museum director who wished to remain anonymous believes the drawing is "a screaming 20th-century fake", and finds the damages and repair to the drawing suspicious.[35] The work was not requested for inclusion in the 2011–12 exhibition at the National Gallery in London, which specifically covered Leonardo's period in Milan; Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery, said simply "We have not asked to borrow it."[35]
From the article it appears that the question is not settled but reasons to think the portrait could actually be by Da Vince are found in study of the actual physical object not provenance.
Perhaps the connection is the LDS author likes the Book of Mormon and some people like the portrait(it is a strong work)
Not remembering this discovery I checked Wikipedia to get filled in. I find that the church article is not only all wrong about Book of Mormon provenance but is wrong about the example used. (appropriate in a way)
The New Yorker article discussed the troubling circumstances in which Kemp attributed this work to Leonardo. But apart from this, strong indications are going against the hypothesis of authenticity, and the attribution to Leonardo has been challenged by a number of scholars who showed interest.[2][30][35] Among the reasons for doubting its authorship are the lack of provenance prior to the 20th century – unusual given Leonardo's renown dating from his own lifetime, as well as the fame of the purported subject's family[35] – and the fact that it was on vellum. Only once did Leonardo use vellum and old sheets of it are easily acquired by forgers.[2] Leonardo scholar Pietro C. Marani discounts the significance of the drawing being made by a left-handed artist, noting that imitators of Leonardo's work have emulated this characteristic in the past.[35] Marani is also troubled by use of vellum, "monotonous" detail, use of colored pigments in specific areas, firmness of touch and lack of craquelure.[35] A museum director who wished to remain anonymous believes the drawing is "a screaming 20th-century fake", and finds the damages and repair to the drawing suspicious.[35] The work was not requested for inclusion in the 2011–12 exhibition at the National Gallery in London, which specifically covered Leonardo's period in Milan; Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery, said simply "We have not asked to borrow it."[35]
This comment is from reddit, from the lds faithful sub:
They're essentially saying that we can know that the Book of Mormon is authentic and ancient because the Book of Mormon contains a record of all of the ancient men who wrote and handed down the Book of Mormon.
It's rather circular, because it's only "evidence" of authenticity if you already accept it as authentic.
This comment is from reddit, from the LDS faithful sub:
They're essentially saying that we can know that the Book of Mormon is authentic and ancient because the Book of Mormon contains a record of all of the ancient men who wrote and handed down the Book of Mormon.
It's rather circular, because it's only "evidence" of authenticity if you already accept it as authentic.
I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted yet.
The moderators there obsessively search through any new commenters' histories and if they ever said anything negative about the church, they're banned.
Give it time for them to clean that little bit of logical thinking out of the sub.
1,800 acres of Mormon-owned land up for sale in Lee’s Summit
Lee’s Summit could soon be growing by leaps and bounds with 1,860 acres of LDS-owned land hitting the market this week.
Getting out of the End Times business in Jackson County Missouri and concentrating on a more lucrative warehouse business makes sense, I guess. Besides, everybody knows that Jesus will ride in on a comet, and hoarding unused land in Missouri will not help the bottom line at Ensign Peak Investments.
