Snow

M. The LDS bookstore in my area, not Deseret Books, carries only books that would typically be carried by Deseret Books; however they can and will order from Signature Books for me when asked. On the other hand, Benchmark Books in SLC is my favorite and they will ship me anything I ask for. Course there are 17.378 million on-line source but I doubt that you are smart enough to figure out how that works you ignorant misguided malodorous saliva-dipped puddle of parrot droppings. Thank you and have a nice day!

I don't see his answer as being the point of his comment. I see the reaction it created as the point he was trying to make. He was remarking on his own biography - don't know how scholarly you have to be to do that. :) M. It's a technique of his. He does it continually though his book - making a point without making a point. Case in point: His chapter on the Godlen Pot... a german author, the guy who wrote The Nutcracker also wrote a story called The Golden Pot. He notes what he thinks are several or more parallels between the JS/Moroni story and the fictional book. He goes on to tell how JS knew a guy who spoke German and who had traveled in Europe. A guy such as this would have enjoyed literature and indeed, may well have enjoyed literature such as the Golden Pot and having been to Europe, may have heard of it and may have even have read it- and then rushed to America to tell Joseph. Is there any evidence that JS ever heard of the story or the details? None whatsoever, but Palmer makes the case, without making the case, that Smith knew about it and stole the story line for his Moroni visitation narrative. The reader is left to make the exact connection that Palmer wanted even though the connection is Palmers own construct. We tried to pin Palmer down if he believed there was I connection. When caught having to defend himself in person, rather than being able to make a one-sided inference in published print, he said, Absolutely not, I simply present the story to show the milieu i which JS lived. Bull. He tried to get away with an unfair paint job he couldn't back up.

[Or, if you are not interested in saving big bucks, but still want to find something fun and interesting Try this:Take a 12 foot lenght of barbwire; string it up one nostril, through and down the other nostril. Take the ends and tie them around the waist of an 800 lbs mountain gorilla. (I prefer a silverback) Then take a loud snare drum and beat on it like a wild banchee. Hold on tight and enjoy the ride!

I have read Palmer's book and reccommend it to this board. Actually, Redbone, Trident's Navy Seal Commander reccommended it - same deal. However, it is a cautioned reccommendation. Palmer is no scholar or at least doesn't much hold to scholarly standards. His "no" in the above quote is an example. The correct response would be that according to the reports of such and such witnesses, the plates were not used in the typical fashion depicted in paintings... and so on.

What do you mean who knows.All told there were 13 witnesses to the translation process or some part of it. No single one of them supports a process that would accomodate your theory. All of them, where they have anything to offer, supports a short time frame, use of the U&T or seer stone and then nothing later as Smith matured in "translating," no outside resources, (Bible, Shakespeare, Manuscript Lost, etc),... Though most or many of the witnesses had great reason (in their minds) to turn against Smith in their later years, they never claimed any differently. Conspiracy is out of the question. There is no evidence for it and much evidence against it. That leaves you with the theory that Joseph fooled them all. Again, there is no evidence for it either.

As I recall, I talked to him on his message board right before his "apostasy." He was all excited about the revisions he made to his book The Bible Says 1830, which I take is his exposition showing that the Bible has pointed the way and predicted the restoration via the LDS Church's founding in 1830. He was a bit bummed out that scholars thought he was a joke, but enthusiatic and resolved to keep up his work. Next thing you know he is in total meltdown mode and now he says he was never a believer, that his work was an attempt to convince himself. That's dishonest. Why people feel the need to publically deal with all their issue I don't get. I feel for the guy that he has had such a miserable time trying and failing to 'get it,' but have no respect for the way he went about it.

No, I don't think so.Passages of the BoM have King James translation errors. Those errors weren't made by Isaiah, there were made by the King's men. JS must have stopped translating and simply copied the KJV. Whether he did that by reading right out of it, or from memory or from some sort of inspiration I don't know. He did make many changes, however, to the Isaiah passages. Some of them closer to our new, better translations of the ancient Bible manuscripts and some of them less close. On balance though, the BoM Isaiah variants seems to be an improvement to the the KJV.

He’s a putz. I remember stumbling upon whyprophets website and being excited, it looked so shiny and smooth that I figgared that it had to contain some powerful medicine. Digging into it, however, revealed a lot of show and not so much go.Now he’s putting his think’n skills to show that the Church ain’t so good. I haven’t bothered to read his new site, cept the opening page but I can tell that it is as putzy as he is. First, while not believing the Church to be true, he basically “lied” for years through his original website and book to convince others and convince himself about the truthfulness of the Church. Not exactly a man of principle. Now he tells us this: He attends Church during the day but works to dissuade others from attending Church at night. Hypocrite. He talks about moral choice but his sense of morality sucks. I get a little skeptical when a man without principles starts preaching what is good for families. The express purpose of his site is as a response to Mormons who “assume” the Church is good for them. Barf. He reeks of condescension. He doesn’t even use the word “believe” instead saying “assume” as if Mormons are too lazy or ignorant to have something to back up their thoughts. Does he mean something better life his current hypocritical life? No thanks. Besides his poor choice of words, this says loads about his messed up thinking. Those who rely on their brainpower to obtain happiness or to “choose the right” are almost always found wanting. This is why I won’t bother reading the rest of his site. He is not a particularly adept or clear thinker. He says it is easy to prove that the Church is not true and then his first argument towards that end is that others make that claim as well. That’s like saying that Tom Cruise can easily be proven to be Tom Cruise because others have claimed to be Tom Cruise as well. Next, he continues that the only proof that the Church is true is “answers to prayers”. By what stroke of genius logic has he determined that his lack of knowledge of other proofs means that there are no other proofs? I would love to see him prove that there are no other proofs. Get back to me; I’ll wait. Remember this is the guy who thinks that true knowledge about the truth is obtainable by being smart. He’s off to a bad start. Next he says that answers to prayers are not proof. Golly; how on earth would he know, in as much as he hasn’t received the answer to MY prayers. Isn’t that a tad presumptuous? The correct statement is that answers to prayers is not a reliable method of proof external to the person receiving the answers and in as much as persons receiving answers, have received contradictory answers, we cannot rely on others answers to guide the rest of us – which is pretty much the Church’s position (each must pursue their own answers) as well but he doesn’t get that part…

Come again?

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence. I agree with you that the existence of things consistent with the Book of Mormon account on a line drawn through Arabia generally southeast of Jerusalem does provide circumstantial evidence of the Book of Mormon. But in the original post, these things were called not "evidence" or "credence" but "proof." Evidence for a thing is not proof of it. "Proof" is essentially a fiction -- it means that we've weighed the evidence for each side and concluded that the evidence for one side outweighs that for the other. Wild honey, trees in Oman, the Arab burial ground with a name similar to Nahum, etc. are individual pieces of evidence to add to the balance for and against the Book of Mormon -- not conclusive proof. Matter of sematics really. Evidence, proof, whatever, it's just that people think of proof and rock solid evidence. Here are some definitions of proof: 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. 3b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence. 4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof. 6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present. Note: If you are 100% positive about the BoM, does that mean you have 200% the proof (see #6)

Nope,You need a new Theory Maureen. The Book of Mormon was written in about 80 days. There was no time for it to evolve into anything. After 2 1/2 months, it was what it was, Isaiah passages included. AFTER the book was completed, then Joseph sent the men on a mission to sell the copyright to raise money to print the book. All along there were multiple people (13 who were a party to the translation process) who knew what was going on and what the purpose of the book was to be. There are contemporary accounts to that effect. So, the question becomes, since everyone around Joseph believed that he was (or he believed he was) translating from ancient plates, why would he have represented it that way but secretly kept to himself that it was just a fictional novel to be sold for profit? And about Anthon. I think that the main purpose or one of the man purposes behind the trip was to convince Martin Harris that Joseph Smith was telling the truth so Martin would put up the green to finish the job. Regardless of what Anthon later claimed (he made later contradictory claims) Martin Harris came away convince that Smith was telling the truth.

What?If it were not true (that I take creative license) and complementary, then I would be offended. As it is, I say: "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." Acutally, I don't know why I say that. It seems out of place on a discussion board. Still in all, if we were in a musket fight, it might be just the ticket.

For who? The writer or the reader? This reader says it makes your post look like something not worth reading, cut and paste from so website with goofy formatting. It doesn't make you look like you have a cohesive thought tying the whole post together. The narrative value, if any (don't know if there is one cause I mostly skip your posts) is lost.

Tao, Yeah. More likely, though, that they write them and then others make up symbols that they, the others, see in the unintended message of the original authors.

elinz, Day by day These things I pray; 1. That you stop formatting your posts to look like poems. 2. You consider a paragraph of more than two sentences. 3. That I will have the strength of 10 men.

Right,It's not like one guy actually wrote Genesis, either as a literal history or as a metaphorical construct. The story was (likely) passed down for centuries as an oral tradition. By the time it got written, who know how faithful it was to the original and then, there was more than one author/version of what became Genesis passed down (copied by scribes) for a 1000 years until someone redacted (edited and wove) the various accounts together. In retrospect you can say that it was this (literal) or that (metabolical) but since the Genesis we have now is not the original, first time told Genesis... who knows. On another note, I am going wireless and networking my computers together. Beyond that I hope for world peace and the admiration of strong minded women. Stay tuned.

I doubt that anyone here that is willing to defend their belief publically believes that the Bible is both literally true AND moderately infallible, except maybe Trident but I suspect that he would dare touch this topic... and if he does, won't be able to refute any of my answers; but of course, he'll attack the BoM for failing the same tests as the Bible.

Tao,Your idea that ancient Egypt is a small proof of Genesis is no proof at all - no more than the Movie Gone with the Wind is proof that Rhett Butler was a real live person. You need to define evidence to correctly answer your questions - legal, linguists, scientific, historical. However, here goes: 1. Do we have evidence for the existence of the Flood as described in Genesis? >>>No and there is tons of evidence to the contrary. 2. Do we have evidence for the life of Moses outside the Bible. Is he mentioned by name? >>>No 3. Do we have evidence for the life of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc...? >>>No 4. Do we have evidence for the life of David? >>Yes, and I have seen it in person. It is the oldest written mention of his name - on a piece of building stone, probably etched within a hundred years of his life. However, the Bible account of him as some near superman King is probably inaccurate. It is more likely that he was a regional governor type later recalled in mythic proportions to give the Jews a sense of heritage. 5. Do we have evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the Bible? Mary? Joseph? John the Baptist? Pilate? >>>No, no contemporary historical evidence - only later entries. 6. When, and in what order were the gospels written in, and does this tell us anything about their reliability? >>>Mark is the earliest. Luke and Matthew used Mark for source material. 7. Do we have evidence for Christ's ressurection? >>>No 8. Do we have evidence for the Creation story in Genesis? Adam and Eve? What about Dinosaurs...how do they fit in? >>>No and evidence exists to the contrary. 9. Are there any contradictions in the Bible? If so, list them. >>>There are thousands. Here's a start: http://www.atheists.org/church/contradictions.html [example: ON THE POWER OF GOD "... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26 "...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 ON SEEING GOD "... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30 "No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18 10. What are the evidences for mistranslations of the Bible? Egads, the list is endless. Start with Moses parting the "Red Sea". Wrong. He parted the "Sea of Reeds." --- Parting a marsh is not quite so impressive as part a deep and wide body of water.

What? How can that be.Do you not believe in talking donkeys? <span style='color:blue'>Numbers 22 Balaam and His Donkey 27 This time when the donkey saw the angel, it lay down under Balaam. In a fit of rage Balaam beat it again with his staff. 28..."What have I done to you that deserves your beating me these three times?" it asked Balaam. 29"Because you have made me look like a fool!" Balaam shouted. "If I had a sword with me, I would kill you!" 30"But I am the same donkey you always ride on," the donkey answered. "Have I ever done anything like this before?" "No," he admitted.

Stop the presses!Trident is making an assumtion. What will we do? Whatever will we do?

Of course you probably skimmed over it. The Mormons, that would be your ilk, are the ones who made the allegation...not me. I simply said that if the poem was never substantiated why would the Church print it? WOOF!! And of course the deathbed confession was just soooooooo perfect....through a second-hand source...his sister. Who knows? OC coulda confessed that he made the whole thing up, and she simply Lied for the Lord (Paul H. Dunn style). Which proves my point....we both love second-hand accounts as long as they back-up our positions. You're a hypocrite, and have demonstrated very poor thinking skills today. I'm disappointed in you, Snow. What on earth do you mean disingenuous. Your source was a poem and I genuinely think thats bunk.I read your post and addressed how flimsey it was. What do you mean why would the Church print it if it wasn't substantiated? Substantiated what? That it was really a poem? What Johnson meant when he said "denied? Exactly what kind of editorial correlation do you think existed in the Church in 1841. It was a po-em for heaven's sake. And your wrong about it being a second hand account. His sister reported what she heard him say. She is the primary account of what she heard. She is the one that heard it for pity's sake. Your concern is that she made it up? Okay, what is your evidence that she made it up? I am willing to be persuaded? What's your proof AS?

You must not have been paying attention. Hey, that explains a lot! In the Ensign Sep '77 p 79 Jan '88 p 6 Jul '93 p 61 Jan 97 p 36 These all talk about the seer stone being used in translation of the Book of Mormon. A couple were written by members of the Quorum of the 12. Definately not paying attention. I am taking part of my lesson (the topic of this thread) from the July 1993 Ensign where Elder Nelson of the 12 specifically covers the rock in the hat and the plates not being present. Wake up and smell the caffiene Antishock.

Not at all. Okay. Then, does it seem strange that I was raised by a pack of she-wolves in wilds and that not only can you not step in the same stream twice, you can't even step in the same stream once (because the stream is constantly changing )

Oh look,Here's another non-new poster with a brand spanking new username.

Or Peter Pan, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Men on the Sun... Oh, good. Another doubter! Not likely. It's one of the regular doubters with a brand spanking new name.