Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

[_Daniel Peterson]

And you have not.. By enlarge you direct people to links, mock people and derail where you can.

If that were really my goal, I would have a field day with by enlarge.

But, as it is, I won't even mention it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I challenged you to come up with historians that have not been employed by the Church. I will grant you Bushman

And May and Kimball?

but I would suggest that his belief is not based upon historical facts to any great degree.

And thus, with a magisterial wave of the hand, TAK dismisses him.

You lied. Period.

Well, it beats tearing the heads off of kittens, which is how I'd been spending the morning up until then. Wouldn't you agree?

[_TAK]

DCP
And thus, with a magisterial wave of the hand, TAK dismisses him.

I don’t dismiss him – May or Kimball – But rather there is no “solid historical case” that supports the LDS version (The most recent one that is..or really any of them..) of how the Book of Mormon came to be for them to rely upon.

[_Ray A]

More on the Sarabias:

Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez is the director of the museum at Teotihuacan. He is a leading Mexican archeologist. He is married to Kim Goldsmith who is also an archeologist.

The Sarabias joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in about 2002. Although their being experts in Mesoamerican archeology is looked on as a plus for the reality of the Book of Mormon, they are quick to point out their conversion was based on faith and not archeological fact.

Sarabia is currently involved with excavations of the sealed cavern under the great pyramid at Teotihuacan. Sarabia is the head of this project and is working with a number of archeologists, not only from Mexico but also from the United States and Japan.

Sarabia has also conducted studies on the sacrafices performed at Teotihuacan.[1] This includes detailed studies of obsidian offerings.[2]

Wikipedia.

This is a deleted page.

[_Daniel Peterson]

there is no “solid historical case” that supports the LDS version (The most recent one that is..or really any of them..) of how the Book of Mormon came to be for them to rely upon.

I'm aware of your opinion on this.




s

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I's not simply his opinion. By what definition of "solid historical case" can a "solid historical case" for the official LDS version of the Book of Mormon be made? At least with the Spaulding theory there is historical evidence of a real guy named Soloman Spaulding, who really did write stories. There is no historical evidence (outside of Joseph Smith's mind) of a real Moroni who wrote anything.

As implausible as the Spalding theory may be, when we're looking for a "solid historical case" it is far more plausible than the official LDS theory.

[_Jason Bourne]

Dan Vogel's reasons against the Spalding theory are extremely weak. In essence he believe the Book of Mormon witnesses who claimed to have seen an angel but discounts all the Spalding witnesses who had no motivation to lie, nor were they all likely to have been mistaken.

Fawn Brodie's reasoning was as well very poor.

You say they were weak. Can you show us what is weak about them?

There may be motivation for historians to discount the Spalding theory, for one by doing so they protect themselves from significant heavy Church attack. The Church can accept, Smith being the sole writer of the Book of Mormon, it doesn't matter much that the historian doesn't believe a God was involved, but there is NO WAY the Church could ever accept the Book of Mormon was written using as a catalyst and base a stolen manuscript from a deceased writer of fictional stories.

I agree that is would be easier for a believing LDS to accept Joseph Smith as the author even without divine intervention by an angel than it would for them to have Rigdon involved using Joseph Smith as a puppet.

[_Jersey Girl]

Forgive my intrusion on this 5 page thread, but has anyone directly answered the OP?

Jersey Girl
(thread starter)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Forgive my intrusion on this 5 page thread, but has anyone directly answered the OP?

I did. In the very next post.

[_Jersey Girl]

Forgive my intrusion on this 5 page thread, but has anyone directly answered the OP?

I did. In the very next post.

You mean your remark regarding history? You mean your remark regarding history where I asked you where the theory was weak and you gave me reference material instead of answering the question?

Don't even start that labyrinth of non-replies with me again, Daniel.