John Sorenson's Historical Overview Of Bofm

[e=mc2]

I thought the historical overview of Sorenson was nicely done. Nothing new, but nicely done. His entire point is that the literature is more complex than was originally supposed by both Mormons and non, in the early days. Textual studies since Thomas Brookebank has increased greatly. Nibley's analysis of proper names has been now extended and the end is not yet. Hebrew characteristics are also interesting, because now they number into the hundreds. There has been movement upwards and increasing our knowledge of not only the BofM, but with ancient history in both the Old World and the New World.

I thought it also interesting that he placed Nephite religion in a different thing than our own. He mentioned Peterson's article Nephi and His Asherah as an example of understanding their religion, not their doctrine from the view point of the restoration in our day. I thought that was interesting.......

[Sargon]

I thought it also interesting that he placed Nephite religion in a different thing than our own. He mentioned Peterson's article Nephi and His Asherah as an example of understanding their religion, not their doctrine from the view point of the restoration in our day. I thought that was interesting.......

I have tended to lean towards this position as well. When reading the Book of Mormon I read an outstanding testimony of Christ, but it is from a people who did not enjoy the all the revelations that have been made available to us in these latter-days.

Sargon

[grego]

His entire point is that the literature is more complex than was originally supposed by both Mormons and non, in the early days.

Amen!! And it keeps coming...