Mister Scratch wrote:While you might be able to say that *TBMs* would see the LDS implications of the above, I doubt very much that the typical academic would read that passage and think, "Yes. This definitely authenticates the historicity of the Book of Mormon." In fact, I would be very interested in seeing the academic reaction to the Book of Mormon descriptions of the Jaredites' seafaring expeditions.
I suspect they'd react the same way they do to Old Testament claims of Jericho's walls tumbling down or the Red Sea parting.
So? Their skeptism hasn't stopped Christianity in its tracks.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Mister Scratch wrote:In fact, I would be very interested in seeing the academic reaction to the Book of Mormon descriptions of the Jaredites' seafaring expeditions.
I already received one from a non-Mormon Mesoamerican archaeologist, but he's only one person, who obviously "knows nothing about Mormonism".
Mister Scratch wrote:In fact, I would be very interested in seeing the academic reaction to the Book of Mormon descriptions of the Jaredites' seafaring expeditions.
I already received one from a non-Mormon Mesoamerican archaeologist, but he's only one person, who obviously "knows nothing about Mormonism".
harmony wrote:I think he got the job of editor just like anyone else gets a job: he applied, no one else who was higher qualified wanted the job, so he got it.
That just happens to be false.
harmony wrote:I just thought that from among your huge collection of articles, or the articles of people you know, you could come up with one current journal.
I could. But why should I lift a finger to do it?
It counts for nothing.
I already published a relevant list in a piece to which I've supplied the link at least a dozen times in various contexts on this board. Have you read it?
His [Payson Sheets, mentioned on Jeff Lindsay's website, which is why I contacted Sheets, to see if Lindsay had the correct context of Sheets' comments], reply was "the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with reality".
I haven't informed Jeff Lindsay of Sheets' email reply, but I believe he [Sheets] is still quoted on Lindsay's site.
Don't have any time left today, the roads are calling me.
His [Payson Sheets, mentioned on Jeff Lindsay's website, which is why I contacted Sheets, to see if Lindsay had the correct context of Sheets' comments], reply was "the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with reality".
I haven't informed Jeff Lindsay of Sheets' email reply, but I believe he [Sheets] is still quoted on Lindsay's site.
Don't have any time left today, the roads are calling me.
Thanks, Ray. And please have a good night on the job.
And, it is just as I expected: there is nothing in this text which even remotely comes close to making claims about Mormonism's most audacious propositions.
Are you a deliberate retard or do you practice? Given that the subject of the book is the idea of ancient JEWISH seafaring (you know, boats..... boats, that's the subject), I would say Lundquist did exactly what was asked of him. Describe the Jewish seafaring ideas in the Book of Mormon. Mormonism's most audacious propositions have nothing to do with the subject. The real scholar, Lundquist, gave the idea an airing that was on the proper subject. Is that so hard for you to actually grasp?