Cal

As to a LITERAL interpretation of the Flood as meaning that water literally covered ALL land--there is TONS of evidence that that kind of "flood" never happened and NONE that it did. Some speculate as to how it "could" have happened but most, if not all, of it is scientific non-sense.

Peace--As usual you miss the point! Some of you have made the claim that JS COULD'NT have come up with the stories in the BoM BECAUSE he did not possess the education or talent. What I have shown is that JS did INDEED have a creative talent and imagination for story telling INDEPENDENT of the BoM. YOur comment does nothing to refute the observation that JS could indeed have come up with the BoM story line on his own. That you think his story telling ability was God given is simply circular reasoning; you are assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove! That is, that JS was inspired by God in the first place! You have said nothing to disprove the fact that JS DID have story telling talent which could account for the BoM as a purely man-made document. Your statement simply ASSERTS your personal belief about it, but does nothing to substantiate it.

This old chestnut has been hashed and rehashed. You seem to be a very intelligent man. You must know that Lucy was not saying that Joseph was a great story teller. She was saying that he was sharing information that he receive via revelation. Not that he , "...had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion." rather that he received the info from the Lord. BTW...it isn't from her diary. srm--wrong about the story telling--this comment was from Lucy Mack Smith's diary and was refering to a time BEFORE JS claimed to have the BoM or visitations from Moroni.

This is very true. I had never really thought about that before, but drinking coffee, tea, whiskey, or other sanitary drinks probably would have spared many lives. I'm not sure how literally they lived the word of wisdom between Nauvoo and Utah though. It's very possible they did drink these things for survival's sake. Yes...back then it was only a 'word of advice', not a commandment. So, why is it a temple recommend question nowadays? Since when did it become a Word of Commandment? Brigham Young instigated it several years after the Saints were established here, along with tithing. Before that...neither were requirements to go to the temple. At least ....well I'm not sure about the WofW....I know the tithing was put as a requirement during BYs day.

Cal, Go pick on Moses. Joseph Smith is my buddy. Paul O

Good for you. The National Enquirer is just about as accurate about events as the Book of Mormon. You're batting, well, none. Actually, the enquirer is well known for it's creative writing abilities. Where as the BofM just can't be fiction. Because it is mostly pure doctrine. Doctrine of Christ.

Don't really know about Mayan, but there is in other Native American cultures. There is a book that was published in 1823 by a fellow by the name of Ethan Smith called "A View of the Hebrews" This book is considered to be a possible book that Joseph Smith plageurized the BoM from. I read this book, and while there is one common theme (that the American Indians are the remnants of Judah (and even this theme is suspect)) there are really no other similarities. Anyway, this book contains a partial list of Indian words and compared them to Jewish words, and lots of it leaves you questioning. Well, lots of it may leave you questioning, but it doesn't leave me questioning. Here is the site of the book http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/voh/voh_main.shtml Here is the page that has the list http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/voh/voh_3a.shtml Scroll down to page 90.

So in other words you have no other debate other than that it is on a small scale? I said homosexuality leads to extinction, I never said it will cause it. How far it leads to extinction is not very far, I agree, but this point is not debatable. So have we determined that homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus cannot further the species, thus goes against the principles of evolution (which is nothing more than a species making itself stronger). Therefore it is NOT natural. Homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution and it doesn't fit into the bible. Where does it fit in?

So in other words you have no other debate other than that it is on a small scale? I said homosexuality leads to extinction, I never said it will cause it. How far it leads to extinction is not very far, I agree, but this point is not debatable. So have we determined that homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus cannot further the species, thus goes against the principles of evolution (which is nothing more than a species making itself stronger). Therefore it is NOT natural. Homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution and it doesn't fit into the bible. Where does it fit in?

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere. What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered. Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight. Yes, I am familiar with that story. And he didn't send the characters to Anthon to ask if they were Egyptian, he sent them to him to ask if what he wrote could be a possible translation. PLEASE use the true facts when you want to argue? Why do you want to look like a fool?

Jenda--I've never understood why mormons would think that Chiasmus in the BoM is anything unusual. The Bible had it, JS was familiar with the Bible so he, either intentionally or subconscieously, included it as an aliterative style. I have NO problem believing that JS was an extremely bright guy, with an incredible memory and imagination. However, none of that makes what he did "super natural". The question is, did he have a little (or a lot) of the "con man" in him? Was he capable of "pulling a fast one on people"? The answer to that question is, clearly he did. As a young man he went around trying to convince people he could see buried treasure in a peep stone. The question is DID he do that when it comes to the BoM story? Let's put it this way, Jenda--do you think JS could actually see buried treasure in a peep stone as he told people he could? If you believe the rest of what he said, why don't you believe that? Chiasmus is a very specific form of poetry, and was not discovered till fairly recently (in the grand scheme of things.) Certainly after JS,Jr's time. While he might have been able to copy writing styles from the Bible, it is highly unlikely that he would have had the brilliance to come up with some of the chiasmus present that have been found in the BoM because some have been extremely intricate. It would have taken a lot more imagination than a 22 year old boy could conjure up to write a 777 page scriptural document, have the themes of the OT carry through to resolution, add the intricate Chiasmus (before anyone was aware of Chiasmus), know that languages deteriorate without the aid of written works to keep them pure, etc. Sorry, the definition you gave to Occam's Razor just doesn't fit. The definition that best fits is what JS,Jr. said. It was given to him from God. One more thing, Cal. But since you are so familiar with the BoM and all, I hate to bring it up, you know, but did you forget, or something, that it was the publisher who put in punctuation, versification, etc.

Jenda-- Maybe it is you that needs to study the whole issue and the circumstances around the production of the BoM. By the way I have read the BoM so many times I have lost track, so please don't make assumptions you haven't investigated. But--consider this---JS was intimately familiar with the Bible--he quoted it extensively in the BoM (or maybe you hadn't noticed--perhaps YOU need to read it a bit more with a more OBJECTIVE eye). Why do you think it so unusual that he would have repeated some of the patterns present in the Bible. The Bible was the primary literature of the 1800's and many people knew its contents. All it really took was a great imagination and the ability to weave an intricate story. The fact that someone writes something most of us couldn't hardly proves that it comes from a supernatural source. There is lots of impressive literature in the world--you don't need "other world" explanations for all of it. Give the human mind and imagination some credit. On top of that look at things like 1) the ultra-specific nature of prophesies of things that had ALREADY happened by JS' time and the shortage of anything SPECIFIC after as well as 2) many of the issues resolved by the BoM were issues hotly debated in the society of New England at the time of JS (what a coincidence that the Native Americans we discussing the same things 1500 years ago) 3) He described a Hebrew people whose scribes seemed to know little about common Hebrew customs--at least not even mentioned.. 4) The native americans the supposed Moroni described as Lamanites (and therefore Hebrews) have no genetic connection to the middle east. 5) When translating what was supposed to be Isaiah off the Plates of Laban, JS included the translation errors of the King James version. How interesting? These are raise serious questions about the authenticity of the BOM. Cal, First, I was not talking to you when I posted that post, so I was obviously not speaking of your knowledge of the BoM, now, was I? But now that you have mentioned it, it seems awfully strange that, since you have read it (numerous times, I might add) that you have made several bad mistakes in your post. Secondly, if you read what I wrote, you would understand that I was talking about the continuance of Biblical themes in the BoM, such as the Abrahamic Covenant, etc., being carried through to completion. Let me state it this way. I come from a different restoration background than the LDS. Our studies of the BoM have gone in different directions than our LDS cousins. There are times when I sit here and read what they believe about the BoM scriptures and I say "Huh? How did they get that?" Our church spent a lot of time immersed in the BoM and how it relates to Abraham, Moses, OT prophets, etc. since the peoples came from OT Jerusalem. And to see the carry-through and resolution of these themes, at least to me, is wonderful. Let me make a suggestion. I don't know what you are trying to bash here, the BoM or the LDS, but I would offer you a challenge. Try to ignore everything you have learned about the BoM from the LDS, and try to ignore all the anti crap you have read. Find a restoration branch of the RLDS church (since the CoC doesn't do serious scripture study (of any kind) anymore) and engage some members there about their beliefs and studies of the BoM. They are so completely un-LDS-like that you would be amazed. I am not saying that this will necessarily convince you of the truth of the BoM, but you will certainly see a different side of the book than you did before. If you are interested in taking this challenge, I can hook you up with a few, but I would only do it if you seriously wanted to learn about it and not find new ways to bash something that you don't know.

Please, do tell us more about these thousands of poorly worded passages that have since been deleted. Can you mention a couple dozen - out of the 1000's? And while your at it, please cite your source for the 1000's or poorly worded passages.

Cal, This is pure theory based on what man thinks he understands based on how he measures and interprets data available today. Where were you 50 billion years ago? Paul O

Good for you. The National Enquirer is just about as accurate about events as the Book of Mormon. You're batting, well, none. Actually, the enquirer is well known for it's creative writing abilities. Where as the BofM just can't be fiction. Because it is mostly pure doctrine.

Cal, Those warm loving feelings of the Mormon Holy Ghost are worth more than anything else I can imagine. Since the Holy Ghost told me it's true, it has to be true regardless of any evidence that might suggest otherwise. Besides, you wouldn't want to ruin my wonderful little fantasy; would you. Paul O

Peace -- What fynde you harde to skyne aboute the Eynglische langue of a thusand years paste? Bat -- Curvette's got a point. Lehi seems to have thought that getting the brass plates would allow his descendants to preserve their language, but it didn't work. (Maybe blending with all those pre-classic Maya and Olmecs, a la FARMS, caused something like the "Spanglish" dialect in southern California -- call it a "Mayabrew." Hey -- maybe you can use that for the name of your fermenting homemade beer.)

This is very true. I had never really thought about that before, but drinking coffee, tea, whiskey, or other sanitary drinks probably would have spared many lives. I'm not sure how literally they lived the word of wisdom between Nauvoo and Utah though. It's very possible they did drink these things for survival's sake. Yes...back then it was only a 'word of advice', not a commandment. Actually it doesn't say advice...it says, 'not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom.

This statement is absolutely stupid! This guy was very very very young....no matter what, even if he was a genius....and you must realized that he showed absolutely no talent before or after this of being a genius of writing made up stuff of this caliber.... he was so young, he couldn't have had enough knowledge crammed into his 3rd grade education level to write such a peice. Not only that, the doctrine is astounding...take it from someone who has been studying the gospel for 30 years indepth and has written books. Reading the doctrine alone, astounds me.... He is a prophet...and I don't say that lightly. I am very very critical and analytical when it comes to leaders and doctrine. Just read Alma ....or Moroni or even Mormon, it is absolutely awesomely perfect and deep doctrine.

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere. What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered. Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight. Eat crow. Mormon 9:34 34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere. What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered. Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight.

Nope, they aren't ancient texts. But, as many before me have asserted, once Joseph translated the BoM, his speech patterned itself after that language when he received and transcribed revelations from the Lord. That happens in lots of cases. So I wouldn't use it to disprove it, either.