Talk:1 Ne 2:1-5

On Szink's review

I'm not entirely comfortable with just appending Szink's review to the Barker article. I respect Szink's work generally, but I think that this one review is rather protracted and hastily argued. While pointing out a number of difficulties, he does not point out the strengths or alternate ways of understanding the issue. Are the extra links meant to supply a sort of contextualization for Barker's reception among Latter-day Saints, or are they there for some other purpose? It seems to me that they do not address very well the connection between the question raised in the passage here and Barker's article. That there are other groups under discussion seems to be the most important point. I wonder if we should drop the extra links or provide at least a little more explanation in the link concerning them. --Joe Spencer 15:27, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)

I only skimmed the Barker article and wasn't entirely clear on the connection to the question raised. I was curious about other LDS views on the subject since my guess was that it was a controversial opinion (esp. the seeming aspersion cast on the book of Deutoronomy which Christ quotes during his 3 temptations, as well as other Deutoronomistic edits). I would suggest explaining/summarizing the argument a bit—the part that's relevant—and at least mention that this view is not undisputed (if not retain some links to other views; surely a better counter-view has been written than Szink's, no?). --RobertC 16:21, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)