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