Home Page › Forums › History and Doctrine Discussions › New Book of Mormon Plagiarism Evidence??
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2013 at 11:39 am #266411
Anonymous
GuestQuote:Its like they thought knowing that more people than JS considered the native Americans might be from lost tribes would destroy mY testimony
Actually the idea was not uncommon. Shortly after the Spanish conquest this idea was frequent (and after the RC church concluded they had souls)
All in all, a better candidate than Marco Polo.
As Roy rightly says, you can’t have it both ways. Opponents of Mormonism often quote a number of theories, but don’t seem to reaize that they’re contradictory.
March 24, 2013 at 10:28 pm #266412Anonymous
GuestJoseph Smith Sr. started writing the BofM story in 1811 by plagiarizing the Travels of Marco Polo! Really???? If Sheets is such an expert on the Anthropology and Archeology of North America why did he not choose that as his career rather than chemical engineering? All of is objections to the BofM are answered in the work of John Sorenson and Brant Gardner. I would not give his book any attention at all! March 25, 2013 at 10:47 am #266413Anonymous
GuestClay wrote:Joseph Smith Sr. started writing the BofM story in 1811 by plagiarizing the Travels of Marco Polo! Really???? If Sheets is such an expert on the Anthropology and Archeology of North America why did he not choose that as his career rather than chemical engineering? All of is objections to the BofM are answered in the work of John Sorenson and Brant Gardner. I would not give his book any attention at all!
I have a lot of respect for Brant Gardner. Some apologists seem to take any evidence and make it all fit into a chaotic mosaic of contradictions.
Gardner seems to do as much work discrediting some of the spurious theories as presenting evidence.
He’s also fairly consistent on certain things and doesn’t theory hop.
For example, he accepts that we can’t really switch back and forth between a tight and loose translation when it suits us. He picks loose and accepts that the implications of doing so means some of the linguistic evidence has to be dropped.
A loose translation also explains why we have so much of 19thC language and ideas in the BoM, but could still be an inspired translation or description of a record of a little people who actually existed..
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.