dorsk,
I apologize about my assertion (about Smith's wife), it is one of those things that I can't remember where I heard it, and I got the details wrong.
You may consider this a "detail." I'd say it's more on the order of a fairly "significant blunder." We all get things wrong from time to time, but in my opinion, your approach is fairly frequently a "ready-fire-aim" one. It would have been one thing to get Joseph's younger brother, for instance, mixed up with his older brother. But getting someone's most staunch ally mixed up with his enemy implies a serious lack of concern for accuracy.
Correct me (again) if I am wrong, but wasn't Smith supposedly warned by God (or an angel) that Satan had altered the manuscript? Thus his was his reason for not translating this part again?
Okay, you're wrong. Joseph was told not to retranslate the stolen 116 pages. No mention was ever made of Satan having altered the manuscript.
For the sake of argument: I beseech DeepShadow and Katzpuh to consider a hypothetical. Is it possible that Smith refused to translate the book of Lehi again, because he knew he would not be able to do it exactly the same way, and simply used the tampering as a reason not to?
Is it possible? Of course it's possible. Anything's possible. I definitely don't believe it was probable.
On the other hand, Smith's ability to take up a story right where he'd left off is hardly evidence of divine translation. As I said, his imagination and storytelling skills could account for that.
Again, your over-simplification shows me how little thought you've given to your statement. I'm sure you've written a term paper or two in your lifetime. Think back to a fairly complex one that you wrote over a period of several days. Now are you telling me that when you returned to the project after an interruption (let's say dinner, a phone call, time spent working on another assignment, or even after a night's sleep) you never bothered to read the last sentence you'd written before you left, to make sure that the next one tied in logically? If you were to write a 520-page book over a period of three months, do you honestly think you could never once go back to review the last paragraph you finished up with the day before, before starting in to work again? I can't even imagine a novelist doing that!
I merely wished to drop any argument that is essentially: My opinion vs. Your opinion. With my second post, I intended to begin a genuine debate.
If that's truly what you want to do, then why ask hypothetical opinion questions, which you are continuing to do?
You're right. I should have said "Jews from Egypt", right? I apoligize for hyperbolizing my point, but it IS an outrageous claim, imho.
No, you shouldn't. They weren't from Egypt. They were from Jerusalem. (I know... it's another one of those things that you can't remember where you heard it, and you got the details wrong.)
Of course, this whole "National Enquirer" stuff is really off point, anyway.
If you only knew how far-fetched some of the material you've come up with really is, you'd recognize what an accurate analogy this really is. You directed me to a website run by Sandra Tanner. I'm sure you've probably never heard of her. Mrs. Tanner and her husband, Jerold, are what could be accurately described as "career anti-Mormons." While she would undoubtedly like her readers to believe that she is simply providing an objective look at the doctrines and history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I can assure you that nothing could possibly be further from the truth.
A non-Mormon scholar (Lawrence Foster, associate professor of American history at the Georgia Institute of Technology) who has spent many years on intensive work on Mormonism and its history says of the Tanners:
"The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writing, and beliefs.... [They] seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same--negative."
A huge amount of what the Tanners write is every bit as poorly researched and sensationalized as what you'd expect to find in the National Enquirer. Perhaps that's why I get so irritated with people who accept their work as legitmate scholarship.
This wasn't meant to offend you, it was straight from the website I showed you, which is largely from this book
By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus(which is free online). The book seems to me to be objective, even citing the "Mormon perspective" on many occasions. If you read my post and what I was referencing, my comments were well within reason. Once again, it was not intended to offend.
I can appreciate why you might think this book to be objective. That was obviously the author's intent. Rather than bore you with my own opinion on the matter, I hope you don't mind if I direct you to another website on which John Gee critiques the book:
John Gee, incidentally, has his Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University. He is an Assistant Research Professor of Egyptology at the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, where he is a series editor for Studies in the Book of Abraham and a member of the editorial board of the Eastern Christian Texts series. He is also on the board of directors for the Aziz S. Atiya Fund for Coptic Studies.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=92&table=review
Once again Katzpur, I don't know what I did to warrant this torrential attack on my character and communication skills. I offer an olive branch of civility, but no apoligies for discussing the facts.
A torrential attack on your character? You need to develop a tougher skin, dorsk. Believe me, if I ever do stoop to that level, you'll know it!
I didn't like your reference to "Religious Pornography" nor your remark about "God sitting on His throne... aroused." I found them tasteless, frankly. And as to your communication skills, well, I think I've explained in this post why I'm unimpressed. I don't believe I attacked your character per se, in any way at all. Sorry you took it that way.
Kathryn
As I have already stated, if you focus on the differences, you will find differences. I like to focus on the similarities. 
