Golden Plates Dating to 600 BC found

[Indy Coug]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2939362.stm

[pellegrino]

I see a future exhibit coming to SLC. They'll title it: "Yet another proof of the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon."

Seriously though, what good, if any, does this do in furthering Mormonism's claims. The same issues remain.

[hopfrog]

The Book of Mormon has been fundamental in restoring my testimony. All of my old punk and queer pals think I'm nuts to believe in anything LDS, but the more I study the BoM and its history, the less likely it seems that an un-educated young farmer could have written it. I'm re-reading Terry L. Givens massively rad BY THE HAND OF MORMON (Oxford University Press 2002). I'm looking for more historical and intellectual studies on the Book of Mormon.

[Jacob]

I see a future exhibit coming to SLC. They'll title it: "Yet another proof of the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon."

Seriously though, what good, if any, does this do in furthering Mormonism's claims. The same issues remain.

Don't you mean "The other issues still remain?"

[Indy Coug]

I see a future exhibit coming to SLC. They'll title it: "Yet another proof of the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon."

Seriously though, what good, if any, does this do in furthering Mormonism's claims. The same issues remain.

I'm not sure how much it furthers claims of truthfulness, but it certainly shoots down a former claim against its truthfulness.

One question that people need to ask is who knew about the existence of records kept on metal plates at the time the Book of Mormon was written? Again, that doesn't prove anything in and of itself, but it is interesting nonetheless.

There are many other examples of records on metal plates dating back 2,000-3,000 years, so this find is far from unique, but I thought I'd throw the link on here just to stir things up.

[woot]

That article is 7 years old. Just pointing it out. It does nothing to help or hurt JS's claims.

[SeattleUte]

The Book of Mormon has been fundamental in restoring my testimony. All of my old punk and queer pals think I'm nuts to believe in anything LDS, but the more I study the BoM and its history, the less likely it seems that an un-educated young farmer could have written it. I'm re-reading Terry L. Givens massively rad BY THE HAND OF MORMON (Oxford University Press 2002). I'm looking for more historical and intellectual studies on the Book of Mormon.

Good luck with that!

[pellegrino]

The Book of Mormon has been fundamental in restoring my testimony. All of my old punk and queer pals think I'm nuts to believe in anything LDS, but the more I study the BoM and its history, the less likely it seems that an un-educated young farmer could have written it. I'm re-reading Terry L. Givens massively rad BY THE HAND OF MORMON (Oxford University Press 2002). I'm looking for more historical and intellectual studies on the Book of Mormon.

Good point hopfrog, I should clairfy, that the sole reason I am a Christian is because of the Book of Mormon. I am frustrated by some members' attempts to use artifacts like this as evidence of the BOM's truthfulness.

Despite what SU says, Givens is a good place to start for intellectual analysis of the BOM and other things Mormon. He is well respected within his field. I appreciate his literary approach. I've got a few other references elsewhere that are interesting, although not all would be considered rigorous in their approach. I'll see if I can't get them to you. His bibliography should also provide some good leads.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The Book of Mormon has been fundamental in restoring my testimony. All of my old punk and queer pals think I'm nuts to believe in anything LDS, but the more I study the BoM and its history, the less likely it seems that an un-educated young farmer could have written it. I'm re-reading Terry L. Givens massively rad BY THE HAND OF MORMON (Oxford University Press 2002). I'm looking for more historical and intellectual studies on the Book of Mormon.

By The Hand of Mormon is an interesting book. Nevertheless, one way or another, almost all of the relevant Book of Mormon historicity questions have their fountainhead in B.H. Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon. Roberts was a Seventy and was Church Historian.

Read the Roberts book and you'll have a good idea of the issues. You also might want to read the two part Sunstone article from about a year ago that staked out most of the "camps" on Book of Mormon historicity. Givens gets into this a bit in People of Paradox, but the Sunstone article is evenhanded and thorough.

[MarkGrace]

Givens gets into this a bit in People of Paradox, but the Sunstone article is evenhanded and thorough.

Who needs Sunstone? I go to SeattleUte for this type of analysis.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Who needs Sunstone? I go to SeattleUte for this type of analysis.

The Sunstone article isn't "anti" by any means. It's a great article that can help someone make sense of all the BoM historicity in-fighting.

I suppose you could go to SU for that....

[Solon]

By The Hand of Mormon is an interesting book. Nevertheless, one way or another, almost all of the relevant Book of Mormon historicity questions have their fountainhead in B.H. Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon. Roberts was a Seventy and was Church Historian.

Read the Roberts book and you'll have a good idea of the issues. You also might want to read the two part Sunstone article from about a year ago that staked out most of the "camps" on Book of Mormon historicity. Givens gets into this a bit in People of Paradox, but the Sunstone article is evenhanded and thorough.

Here's a link to the sunstone article:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/shop/products/?product_id=2929&category=3

Apparently they want $3 for it.

[wuapinmon]

Good luck with that!

hop,

While I won't say, "ignore, SU" because sometimes he is hilarious, and he is usually erudite and brings solid insights into almost any non-sports-related thread in which he participates, if you don't know him, you'll mistake his snide comments as pedestrian insults, when they are actually patrician in nature. And then, oh!, sometimes, his trolling skills rise up and snatch greatness from some Platonic trolling plane. If God ever trolled, SU would be our closest approximation to His perfection.

[SoonerCoug]

hop,

While I won't say, "ignore, SU" because sometimes he is hilarious, and he is usually erudite and brings solid insights into almost any non-sports-related thread in which he participates, if you don't know him, you'll mistake his snide comments as pedestrian insults, when they are actually patrician in nature. And then, oh!, sometimes, his trolling skills rise up and snatch greatness from some Platonic trolling plane. If God ever trolled, SU would be our closest approximation to His perfection.

In other words, SU is the most indispensable poster on this board.

[falafel]

In other words, SU is the most indispensable poster on this board.

Are you sure? It seems like we recently crowned someone else the most valuable. Is there a difference between indispensable and most valuable?