Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site dadlab.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!azure!dadlab!russ From: russ@dadlab.UUCP (Russell Anderson) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Russell Anderson's Enoch article Message-ID: <127@dadlab.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-May-84 15:29:49 EDT Article-I.D.: dadlab.127 Posted: Thu May 31 15:29:49 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 08:21:25 EDT References: <1102@ihuxr.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 28 I would like to thank Lew for pointing out my over zealous statement that the Book of Enoch did not exist in 1829. However his further comments were a general attack on the church and did not respond to the basics of the issue. I included a lot of material that provided a comparison between the Book of Moses by Joseph Smith and the Enoch fragments translated by Milik. Lew attacked those additional comparisons as not being very stong, and I agree. I thought the extra information would be appreciated but I could have just as well have left it out. The only critical issue is that Mahijah, as an individual was, verified in the setting as Joseph Smith had put him. Now Lew may feel a need to attack Mormonism in general, but the question that was being discussed was revelation knowledge. I took that to mean any type of revelation knowledge and presented the example from the Book of Enoch as a verifiable example of knowledge that only could have been revealed. To brand Joseph Smith as a charlatan does not answer the question as to where this revelation knowledge came from, or the rest of his accomplishments. I am sorry that this will probably be my last response on this or any issue since I will be leaving the net tomorrow. Give me the benefit of the doubt in your flames. Russell Anderson tektronix!dadlab!russ