Book Of Mormon Translation - Rock In The Hat.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by srm@Feb 19 2004, 09:07 AM

....I ask again, how did Joseph get Isaiah to say it 2500 years earlier?

I'm still waiting for the refernce to Lucy's diary...and how about the actual quote about Joseph's storytelling?

srm - Huh? IMO this is an idiotic question. I can credibly speculate that JS wrote parts of the BofM by plagiarizing Isaiah. JS had access to a Bible. Your question makes no sense.

M.

[Guest Starsky]

I know JS didn't plagiarized anything......what is in the BofM was ordained of God...and when has reinterating become plagiarizing...Isaiah was given full credit...What an idiotic thing to call it...plagiarizing......of course you are only regurgitating what you have heard...so I guess I won't accuse you of plagiarizing other uneducated blind followers of darkness.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 19 2004, 10:05 AM

I know JS didn't plagiarized anything......what is in the BofM was ordained of God...and when has reinterating become plagiarizing...Isaiah was given full credit...What an idiotic thing to call it...plagiarizing......of course you are only regurgitating what you have heard...so I guess I won't accuse you of plagiarizing other uneducated blind followers of darkness.

I can't remember if I first heard about the plagiarizing or read about it - either way that does not negate the possibility that parts of the BofM were plagiarized.

M.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Maureen+Feb 19 2004, 10:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Feb 19 2004, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 19 2004, 10:05 AM

I know JS didn't plagiarized anything......what is in the BofM was ordained of God...and when has reinterating become plagiarizing...Isaiah was given full credit...What an idiotic thing to call it...plagiarizing......of course you are only regurgitating what you have heard...so I guess I won't accuse you of plagiarizing other uneducated blind followers of darkness.

I can't remember if I first heard about the plagiarizing or read about it - either way that does not negate the possibility that parts of the BofM were plagiarized.

M.

Well maybe not for you...but for me...I know that it wasn't plagiarized. You are pushing your own doubts as facts Maureen.

I know from a higher source...trivialize that as you may....when all things come down and the end is happening...even the heathen will be praying to that higher source that he proclaimed didn't exist.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 19 2004, 10:54 AM

Well maybe not for you...but for me...I know that it wasn't plagiarized. You are pushing your own doubts as facts Maureen.

I know from a higher source...trivialize that as you may....when all things come down and the end is happening...even the heathen will be praying to that higher source that he proclaimed didn't exist.

Peace - I never said it was a fact, I said it was a possibility.

M.

[Guest Starsky]

It isn't even a possibility. Really.

[srm]

srm - Huh? IMO this is an idiotic question. I can credibly speculate that JS wrote parts of the BofM by plagiarizing Isaiah. JS had access to a Bible. Your question makes no sense.

M.

Idiotic? Why thank you, may I have another? Since we are told that it is the writings of Isaiah is not plagiarism. Cal claims that Joseph made up this prophecy after Anton met with Martin. This could not be the case because Joseph did not make it up. The Book of Mormon was quoting Isaiah. So the question is how did he get Isaiah to say what he wanted 2500 years before so it could match up with Martin's experience.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by srm@Feb 19 2004, 11:54 AM

....The Book of Mormon was quoting Isaiah. So the question is how did he get Isaiah to say what he wanted 2500 years before so it could match up with Martin's experience.

Just to begin, I checked an 1830 BofM edition and nowhere in 2Nephi from about pages 107 to 111 does it mention that the words were quoted from the book of Isaiah.

As to your question, my theory is this:

First of all, it’s hard to speculate JS’s state of mind in creating the BofM - to sell for a profit or to see if he had any talent at writing? I personally believe JS had a passion for language and writing (ie his letters to Emma were very colourful and descriptive). Maybe deep down inside he wanted to be an author but knew he was lacking in certain skills. Since the selling of the copyright did not pan out as time went on it appears the book evolved into something more – a following.

In regards to the BofM - to make the story of the book to be somewhat scriptural since it was about a Jewish family, JS may have been inspired by certain Bible passages. Isaiah 29 may have given JS inspiration for introducing his book (BofM) to others. The Isaiah passages are talking about a book and JS happened to be writing one so he may have thought (since he knew the words/thoughts came from the book of Isaiah) that that would give his story a credible scriptural foundation – or – if JS actually thought he had a calling from on high; he may have sincerely felt that what he was writing (his own creative story, not the stuff he borrowed) was inspired from God – hence the discovery of the Isaiah passages (a coincidence or God inspired?) fit well into what he was trying to create.

It may be just a tiny coincidence regarding Dr. Anton and “reading the book” as mentioned in the BofM. But if I remember, Martin Harris did not give Dr. Anton a book to read but just scribbles of a supposed language on some paper. I believe that the passages in 2Nephi 27 are about introducing the whole BofM at just the right time and not what happened with Dr. Anton.

As I said above this is just my theory. I do not believe the BofM is from God but I do believe that JS had a hand in creating it – whatever the reasons for doing so I can only speculate.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Feb 19 2004, 01:04 PM

[since the selling of the copyright did not pan out as time went on it appears the book evolved into something more – a following.

In regards to the BofM - to make the story of the book to be somewhat scriptural since it was about a Jewish family, JS may have been inspired by certain Bible passages. Isaiah 29 may have given JS inspiration for introducing his book (BofM) to others.

It may be just a tiny coincidence regarding Dr. Anton and “reading the book” as mentioned in the BofM. But if

Nope,

You need a new Theory Maureen. The Book of Mormon was written in about 80 days. There was no time for it to evolve into anything. After 2 1/2 months, it was what it was, Isaiah passages included.

AFTER the book was completed, then Joseph sent the men on a mission to sell the copyright to raise money to print the book. All along there were multiple people (13 who were a party to the translation process) who knew what was going on and what the purpose of the book was to be. There are contemporary accounts to that effect. So, the question becomes, since everyone around Joseph believed that he was (or he believed he was) translating from ancient plates, why would he have represented it that way but secretly kept to himself that it was just a fictional novel to be sold for profit?

And about Anthon. I think that the main purpose or one of the man purposes behind the trip was to convince Martin Harris that Joseph Smith was telling the truth so Martin would put up the green to finish the job. Regardless of what Anthon later claimed (he made later contradictory claims) Martin Harris came away convince that Smith was telling the truth.

[Guest Starsky]

Just to begin, I checked an 1830 BofM edition and nowhere in 2Nephi from about pages 107 to 111 does it mention that the words were quoted from the book of Isaiah.

Even if it weren't noted in the first edition, anyone reading the bible like everyone did back then would recognize it and JS was not educated enough to put foot notes...that was done later...

This only proves more to the truth that JS translated it from plates, not the Bible...by divine inspiration so as to give an acceptable rendition of the important prophesies in that book for our day.

If people would spend more time trying to understand and apply what Isaiah was teaching in that part that was in the BofM...than on trying to prove it plagiarized...they would get a lot more out of life.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 19 2004, 02:18 PM

This only proves more to the truth that JS translated it from plates, not the Bible...by divine inspiration so as to give an acceptable rendition of the important prophesies in that book for our day.

Come again?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 19 2004, 02:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 19 2004, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 19 2004, 02:18 PM

This only proves more to the truth that JS translated it from plates, not the Bible...by divine inspiration so as to give an acceptable rendition of the important prophesies in that book for our day.

Come again?

Thank you I will.

[Guest Starsky]

Just messin' with ya...

When Maureen said that in the book printed in 1830 didn't have reference to those passages being from Isaiah, I said....it only made sense because JS wasn't looking in the Bible under Isaiah to give references...he was translating from plates.

[srm]

Here is a list of verses that say that Isaiah is included and quoted. I could probably give you twice as many verses if you like. For a person to say that it was plagiarized that is inaccurate.

2 Ne. 11: 2

2 And now I, Nephi, write more• of the words of Isaiah•, for my soul delighteth in his words. For I will liken his words unto my people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he verily saw• my Redeemer, even as I have seen him.

2 Ne. 11: 8

8 And now I write some• of the words of Isaiah, that whoso of my people shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men. Now these are the words, and ye may liken them unto you and unto all men.

2 Ne. 12: 1

1 THE• word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

2 Ne. 17: 3

3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah: Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit• of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field;

2 Ne. 23: 1

1 THE• burden of bBabylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

2 Ne. 25: 1

1 NOW I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard• for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

Mosiah 15: 6

6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as• Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened• not his mouth.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by srm@Feb 19 2004, 02:52 PM

Here is a list of verses that say that Isaiah is included and quoted....

srm - The list you provided does credit Isaiah but the pages that are part of the "reading of the book" that was mentioned in 2Nephi 27:15 don't mention Isaiah at all.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 19 2004, 02:25 PM

Just messin' with ya...

When Maureen said that in the book printed in 1830 didn't have reference to those passages being from Isaiah, I said....it only made sense because JS wasn't looking in the Bible under Isaiah to give references...he was translating from plates.

No, I don't think so.

Passages of the BoM have King James translation errors. Those errors weren't made by Isaiah, there were made by the King's men. JS must have stopped translating and simply copied the KJV. Whether he did that by reading right out of it, or from memory or from some sort of inspiration I don't know. He did make many changes, however, to the Isaiah passages. Some of them closer to our new, better translations of the ancient Bible manuscripts and some of them less close. On balance though, the BoM Isaiah variants seems to be an improvement to the the KJV.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Feb 19 2004, 02:12 PM

Nope,

You need a new Theory Maureen. The Book of Mormon was written in about 80 days. There was no time for it to evolve into anything. After 2 1/2 months, it was what it was, Isaiah passages included.

AFTER the book was completed, then Joseph sent the men on a mission to sell the copyright to raise money to print the book. All along there were multiple people (13 who were a party to the translation process) who knew what was going on and what the purpose of the book was to be. There are contemporary accounts to that effect. So, the question becomes, since everyone around Joseph believed that he was (or he believed he was) translating from ancient plates, why would he have represented it that way but secretly kept to himself that it was just a fictional novel to be sold for profit?

And about Anthon. I think that the main purpose or one of the man purposes behind the trip was to convince Martin Harris that Joseph Smith was telling the truth so Martin would put up the green to finish the job. Regardless of what Anthon later claimed (he made later contradictory claims) Martin Harris came away convince that Smith was telling the truth.

My theory isn't carved in stone and I may need to work at it a bit but I'm positive there's a reasonable explanation for the creation of the BofM. I doubt that it was created in those 80 days as described in Mormon history. If JS had already finished writing the BofM and was being deceptive with the seer stone activities to involve his friends and family in the belief that scripture was coming forth by the power of God; then either he was being deceptive diliberately (for whatever reason) or he himself believed his book was actually from God and he convinced himself that he needed the deception to introduce the book to the world or no one would accept it. Who really knows!?

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Feb 19 2004, 05:17 PM

My theory isn't carved in stone and I may need to work at it a bit but I'm positive there's a reasonable explanation for the creation of the BofM. I doubt that it was created in those 80 days as described in Mormon history. If JS had already finished writing the BofM and was being deceptive with the seer stone activities to involve his friends and family in the belief that scripture was coming forth by the power of God; then either he was being deceptive diliberately (for whatever reason) or he himself believed his book was actually from God and he convinced himself that he needed the deception to introduce the book to the world or no one would accept it. Who really knows!?

M.

What do you mean who knows.

All told there were 13 witnesses to the translation process or some part of it. No single one of them supports a process that would accomodate your theory. All of them, where they have anything to offer, supports a short time frame, use of the U&T or seer stone and then nothing later as Smith matured in "translating," no outside resources, (Bible, Shakespeare, Manuscript Lost, etc),... Though most or many of the witnesses had great reason (in their minds) to turn against Smith in their later years, they never claimed any differently. Conspiracy is out of the question. There is no evidence for it and much evidence against it. That leaves you with the theory that Joseph fooled them all. Again, there is no evidence for it either.

[srm]

My theory isn't carved in stone and I may need to work at it a bit but I'm positive there's a reasonable explanation for the creation of the BofM. I doubt that it was created in those 80 days as described in Mormon history. If JS had already finished writing the BofM and was being deceptive with the seer stone activities to involve his friends and family in the belief that scripture was coming forth by the power of God; then either he was being deceptive diliberately (for whatever reason) or he himself believed his book was actually from God and he convinced himself that he needed the deception to introduce the book to the world or no one would accept it. Who really knows!?

M.

That does make it easy for you. You can toss out theories with the perogative to change your mind.

You said, "I'm positive there's a reasonable explanation for the creation of the BofM." does that include the possibilty that it is what it claims to be? if not, why not? I'll agree w/ Snow. Emma herself said that Joseph could not have hidden books or papers from him. The reports from the witnesses make the writting/translation iof the Book of Mormon a miracle whether it was divine or the creation of joseph himself.

Regarding isaiah, i understand what you're saying but I vehemetly disagree. i think that the prophesy in Isaiah is clear. and fits well with what happened to Martin

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Maureen+Feb 19 2004, 05:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Feb 19 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Feb 19 2004, 02:12 PM

Nope,

You need a new Theory Maureen. The Book of Mormon was written in about 80 days. There was no time for it to evolve into anything. After 2 1/2 months, it was what it was, Isaiah passages included.

AFTER the book was completed, then Joseph sent the men on a mission to sell the copyright to raise money to print the book. All along there were multiple people (13 who were a party to the translation process) who knew what was going on and what the purpose of the book was to be. There are contemporary accounts to that effect. So, the question becomes, since everyone around Joseph believed that he was (or he believed he was) translating from ancient plates, why would he have represented it that way but secretly kept to himself that it was just a fictional novel to be sold for profit?

And about Anthon. I think that the main purpose or one of the man purposes behind the trip was to convince Martin Harris that Joseph Smith was telling the truth so Martin would put up the green to finish the job. Regardless of what Anthon later claimed (he made later contradictory claims) Martin Harris came away convince that Smith was telling the truth.

My theory isn't carved in stone and I may need to work at it a bit but I'm positive there's a reasonable explanation for the creation of the BofM. I doubt that it was created in those 80 days as described in Mormon history. If JS had already finished writing the BofM and was being deceptive with the seer stone activities to involve his friends and family in the belief that scripture was coming forth by the power of God; then either he was being deceptive diliberately (for whatever reason) or he himself believed his book was actually from God and he convinced himself that he needed the deception to introduce the book to the world or no one would accept it. Who really knows!?

M.

Well I know it wasn't disception. Because I myself wouldn't deceive.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 19 2004, 10:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 19 2004, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Maureen@Feb 19 2004, 10:51 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 19 2004, 10:05 AM

I know JS didn't plagiarized anything......what is in the BofM was ordained of God...and when has reinterating become plagiarizing...Isaiah was given full credit...What an idiotic thing to call it...plagiarizing......of course you are only regurgitating what you have heard...so I guess I won't accuse you of plagiarizing other uneducated blind followers of darkness.

I can't remember if I first heard about the plagiarizing or read about it - either way that does not negate the possibility that parts of the BofM were plagiarized.

M.

Well maybe not for you...but for me...I know that it wasn't plagiarized. You are pushing your own doubts as facts Maureen.

I know from a higher source...trivialize that as you may....when all things come down and the end is happening...even the heathen will be praying to that higher source that he proclaimed didn't exist.

Peace, seems to me that you are pushing your beliefs as fact! LOL

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bizabra+Feb 20 2004, 09:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ Feb 20 2004, 09:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Feb 19 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by -Maureen@Feb 19 2004, 10:51 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 19 2004, 10:05 AM

I know JS didn't plagiarized anything......what is in the BofM was ordained of God...and when has reinterating become plagiarizing...Isaiah was given full credit...What an idiotic thing to call it...plagiarizing......of course you are only regurgitating what you have heard...so I guess I won't accuse you of plagiarizing other uneducated blind followers of darkness.

I can't remember if I first heard about the plagiarizing or read about it - either way that does not negate the possibility that parts of the BofM were plagiarized.

M.

Well maybe not for you...but for me...I know that it wasn't plagiarized. You are pushing your own doubts as facts Maureen.

I know from a higher source...trivialize that as you may....when all things come down and the end is happening...even the heathen will be praying to that higher source that he proclaimed didn't exist.

Peace, seems to me that you are pushing your beliefs as fact! LOL

Well, they are. What can I say?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Feb 19 2004, 07:46 PM

What do you mean who knows.

Actually there are only 2 that know for sure - God and Joseph Smith. JS is dead, so no luck there and personally I think God would rather leave it as a mystery for us to search and solve ourselves. It's more fun that way.

I'm putting my theories on hold for now but offer some reading material instead. Here is an excerpt from Grant H. Palmer's Preface to his book:

An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins

<span style='color:blue'>...Perhaps the reader is already puzzled by this lengthy dialogue on historiography and freedom of belief. If so, let me state clearly what can be expected from this book. I, along with colleagues, and drawing from years of research, find the evidence employed to support many traditional claims about the church to be either nonexistent or problematic. In other words, it didn't all happen the way we've been told. For the sake of accuracy and honesty, I think we need to address and ultimately correct this disparity between historical narratives and the inspirational stories that are told in church. Hopefully my book will be received in the spirit in which it is intended. As English philosopher John Stuart Mill said, any attempt to resist another opinion is a "peculiar evil." If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the "opportunity of exchanging error for truth." If it is wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in "its collision with error."4

On 4-5 January 1922, B. H. Roberts, senior president of the church's seven presidents of the seventy, presented to ranking church leaders what he called "Book of Mormon Difficulties" discussed in chapter two of this book. Elder Roberts said: "In a church which claimed continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary." He hoped his brethren would bring "the inspiration of the Lord" to solve these problems. However, after his presentations, his colleagues reaffirmed their testimonies of the Book of Mormon and offered no solutions.5

I would like to renew Elder Roberts's call for a more candid discussion of the foundations of the church beginning with the Book of Mormon. I discuss these issues in eight chapters, the first of which evaluates Joseph Smith's efforts at translation. Chapters 2-4 examine Joseph's intellectual environment, including the King James Bible, evangelical religion, and American antiquities, all of which influenced the content of the Book of Mormon. Chapter 4 also discusses religious feelings and the Holy Ghost. Chapters 5-6 reveal the impact of folk beliefs on two early claims of Mormonism. Chapters 7-8 investigate priesthood restoration and Joseph's first vision, detailing the developments and what precipitated the changes in the history of these two experiences.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/ins...ider's.html

M.

[srm]

Originally posted by Maureen+Feb 20 2004, 10:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Feb 20 2004, 10:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Feb 19 2004, 07:46 PM

What do you mean who knows.

Actually there are only 2 that know for sure - God and Joseph Smith. JS is dead, so no luck there and personally I think God would rather leave it as a mystery for us to search and solve ourselves. It's more fun that way.

I'm putting my theories on hold for now but offer some reading material instead. Here is an excerpt from Grant H. Palmer's Preface to his book:

An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins

<span style='color:blue'>...Perhaps the reader is already puzzled by this lengthy dialogue on historiography and freedom of belief. If so, let me state clearly what can be expected from this book. I, along with colleagues, and drawing from years of research, find the evidence employed to support many traditional claims about the church to be either nonexistent or problematic. In other words, it didn't all happen the way we've been told. For the sake of accuracy and honesty, I think we need to address and ultimately correct this disparity between historical narratives and the inspirational stories that are told in church. Hopefully my book will be received in the spirit in which it is intended. As English philosopher John Stuart Mill said, any attempt to resist another opinion is a "peculiar evil." If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the "opportunity of exchanging error for truth." If it is wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in "its collision with error."4

On 4-5 January 1922, B. H. Roberts, senior president of the church's seven presidents of the seventy, presented to ranking church leaders what he called "Book of Mormon Difficulties" discussed in chapter two of this book. Elder Roberts said: "In a church which claimed continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary." He hoped his brethren would bring "the inspiration of the Lord" to solve these problems. However, after his presentations, his colleagues reaffirmed their testimonies of the Book of Mormon and offered no solutions.5

I would like to renew Elder Roberts's call for a more candid discussion of the foundations of the church beginning with the Book of Mormon. I discuss these issues in eight chapters, the first of which evaluates Joseph Smith's efforts at translation. Chapters 2-4 examine Joseph's intellectual environment, including the King James Bible, evangelical religion, and American antiquities, all of which influenced the content of the Book of Mormon. Chapter 4 also discusses religious feelings and the Holy Ghost. Chapters 5-6 reveal the impact of folk beliefs on two early claims of Mormonism. Chapters 7-8 investigate priesthood restoration and Joseph's first vision, detailing the developments and what precipitated the changes in the history of these two experiences.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/ins...ider's.html

M.

No, there are others who know.

The three witnesses know if they saw the plates et al.

The 12 witnesses know if they saw the plates

mary whitmer knows if she saw the plates

Emma Smith knows it the plates were in the house...and if she felt them through a cloth

Oliver knows if he saw numerous angels.

This list could go on and on

[Guest Starsky]

As much as I believe BHR to be a very insightful man, he has left out one important element in all of his findings and desires...

That is: God rules. He prepared JS to do what He wanted him to do. He chose the way it was to be done, and even chose to have it cloaked in mystery and error. These are hidden treasures only arrived at through spiritual roads.

If men and women would go through the BofM first for spiritual feeding, enlightening, and connection to God, they would never bother to look for the physical inconsistencies.

What of a flower in the middle of a weed patch? Is that flower any less beautiful? If anything, it is even more precious because of it's isolated location amists all the weeds.

Unfortunately most are determined to pull all the weeds and push them up in our face so that we loose sight of this one precious flower.

The church even has printed on every book....A second witness for Jesus Christ

It never claims to be a comprehensive historical study. Can you imagine anyone in our secular world claiming that exerpts from many historical records and newspapers, however incomplete, were historically correct?

It would be totally bogus. Neither does the bofm claim to be a comprehensive history of the people...Nephi even states there are two sets of records that he is keeping...one of the secular history and one for the spiritual things....we only have parts of this and that which Mormon felt was demonstrating some fascet of our latter day experience inwhich he feels we could benefit.

So who the "what" cares what any discovery of BHR comes up with or anyone else for that matter? It is all about finding the spiritual path to God...and that promise can be delivered everytime anyone really searches the book for spiritual enlightenment.