Jump to content

Fair Dinkum

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

115 Excellent

About Fair Dinkum

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't know...July 22nd looked pretty Doomdayish for Daybell...I'd say he hit a bullseye.
  2. Putting on my Elder Arnold Cunningham Hat: But an Ancient White American Angel delivering Golden Plates? "Now that makes perfect sense"
  3. Knowing that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible depended on Clarke's Bible Commentary, that some elements in the Pearl of Great Price depended on Thomas ****'s work and that some of Emanuel Swedenborg's work influenced Smith's new revelations in the D&C, it would not surprise me at all were some millennial Biblical Scholar to publish a paper showing a similar pattern of idea borrowing for many of the major themes within the Book of Mormon. Heck we all ready know that Smith incorporated large portions of both the old and new testiments from his 1769 family Bible into the Book of Mormon, would it really be a surprise to learn that he carried this pattern into other chapters of the Book of Mormon as well? It seems to me that Smith was a sponge, using the ideas of others as a catalyst to add to and expand on the ideas of others which he then incorporated into his own works. This is not to diminish the great work that Smith was able to do by borrowing the ideas of others.
  4. Really? So no accountability for the dead?
  5. While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story: In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form. The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon" In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member. Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. The questions were quite straight forward: when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages. Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms. The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism. The use of silk was unknown to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself. The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities. Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems. While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church. https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712 Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged. Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922. Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.
  6. Calm I agree with you on at least one of your points. I have no doubt that "there will be family and friends feeling betrayed as well as tithing paying members who wonder now about if their tithing is going to someone it should...and yet he is apparently okay with that since he chose to go on RFM anyway."
  7. I do find it interesting that Dr. Hauglid was considered credible with our community until he 01. Came to a conclusion on the BoA that differed from Dr. Gee's 02.Expressed his changing views on the BoA and 02. Went on the RFM podcast. Remember he was a member of BYU's Religion Department, a member of FAIR and an editor of Volume 4 for the the JSP Project. Only after coming to a different conclusion was his credibility questioned, before that he was a go to apologist.
  8. Also before anyone attempts to separate Smith from the KEP keep in mind that several of the 34 pages that were written on were done so in Smiths own handwriting. So all the theory handwringing trying to remove smith from the KEP is a waste of time. And the KEP Link’s Smiths translation to the extant papyri not to mention that the book itself directs the reader to the extant papyri
  9. First: where have I ever said the BoA is an obvious fraud? However is it what Joseph himself said it was? No. So at least in my mind the BoA remains an enigma. Second: nothing you have provided in your post I’ve quoted above supports the missing scroll theory which is what my comments were directed to
  10. There is nothing, I repeat nothing to support the theory of a missing scroll containing the Book of Abraham. There are missing scrolls, yes, but nothing other than convenient conjecture and speculation that those missing scrolls contained the Book of Abraham If translation took place after 1835, which the diary evidence supports, then the KEP were a translation tool in the production of the Book of Abraham. This evidence would show that the Book of Abraham came from the extant papyri in the churches possession.
  • Create New...