Book Of Mormon Translation - Rock In The Hat.

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 16 2004, 09:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 16 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 13 2004, 09:14 AM

It is well documented that he, from a young age, had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion. His mother recalls in her diary of how he, as a young man, would keep the family spell bound for hours telling tales of the native american indians.

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.

Please provide a source where we can read it. It is not enough to say that it was in Lucy's diary. Because I think that you are mistaken.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 16 2004, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 16 2004, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 16 2004, 07:25 PM

Didn't some Church periodical purport that OC said something to the effect that JS made it all up?  Oh yeah...in 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Times and Seasons, Vol 2, p482.  Even if this allegation in ode was never substantiated why would the Church consider it good enough to print?  OC was good enough to slander in 1841, but now has to be held up as a reliable witness?  Give me a break.

I knew that I would need to cut off the limb that you crawled out on. Given enough space, you'd jump off yourself.

Let's see.

Your claim... that Oliver Cowdery denied the devinity of the Bom.

Your proof... a poem by J.H. Johnson

“The wise shall understand.” Daniel.

        Amazed with wonder! I look round

To see most people of our day,

        Reject the glorious gospel sound,

Because the simple turn away.

        Or does it prove there is no time,

Because some watches will not go?

        But does it prove there is no crime

Because not punished here below?

        ...Or prove that Christ was not the Lord

Because that Peter cursed and swore?

        Or Book of Mormon not his word

Because denied, by Oliver? (Times and Seasons, Vol.2, p.482.)

At least no one ever claimed that exmormons were critical thinkers. How hard do you think this will be to rebutt?

What did JH mean by denied? Did he mean deny like Peter denied Christ (not denying Christ's divinity but denying his association with Him)? Did he mean that OC abandoned his calling to preach the BoM? Did he mean that after being excommunicated, OC hung out and worshiped with the Methodist while he was waiting to return to fellowship?

Who knows. It doesn't matter. Even if he meant "deny" in the way you want him to have meant "deny, Johnson was in Kirtland at the time of OC's Missouri excommunication and his opinion is, at best, perpetuation of a rumor and has no evidential value. Big deal.

On the other hand, here is what OC said publically 7 years after Johnson's little ditty, while OC was still a non-member:

“I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God..I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.”

Later, after Oliver had rejoined the Church, was preparing to move to Utah and fell ill with tuberculosis, his half -sister Lucy reportsL

“Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle.”

You were doing good with the Jaredites and barges argument. You should try that again.

I knew you were just waiting to jump on this one. This is why you're so disingenuous. I said:

Didn't some Church periodical purport that OC said something to the effect that JS made it all up? Oh yeah...in 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Times and Seasons, Vol 2, p482. Even if this allegation in ode was never substantiated why would the Church consider it good enough to print? OC was good enough to slander in 1841, but now has to be held up as a reliable witness? Give me a break.

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.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 16 2004, 10:12 PM

Let's see.

Your claim... that Oliver Cowdery denied the devinity of the Bom.

Your proof... a poem by J.H. Johnson

“The wise shall understand.” Daniel.

        Amazed with wonder! I look round

To see most people of our day,

        Reject the glorious gospel sound,

Because the simple turn away.

        Or does it prove there is no time,

Because some watches will not go?

        But does it prove there is no crime

Because not punished here below?

        ...Or prove that Christ was not the Lord

Because that Peter cursed and swore?

        Or Book of Mormon not his word

Because denied, by Oliver? (Times and Seasons, Vol.2, p.482.)

At least no one ever claimed that exmormons were critical thinkers.  How hard do you think this will be to rebutt?

Thanks Snow...this was great. It shows the kind of game Anti plays...of course we have had lots of experience with his same kind of 'out of context' ramblings.

Of course Peace just laps this little piece of apolopathetics up!

Peace. The poem is right there. In the poem it is alleged that OC denied the BoM. The poem was printed BY THE MORMONS. Why would the MORMONS, that would be your ilk, allege that OC denied the BoM if he never denied it? Please explain...and save the insipid remarks for some other thread.

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 12 2004, 08:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 12 2004, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Feb 11 2004, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 11 2004, 09:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 08:10 PM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document.  It is primarily an ancient-American document.  Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

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.

Jenda--if, as you claim, that the BoM heiroglyphics had been so altered as to supposedly be unrecognizable to perhaps the earlier versions, then WHY could JS have Martin Harris take these to Prof. Anthon and expect him to be able to say anything intelligent about them. In other words, JS, knowing that this was not a language that conventional egyptologists would recognize, why bother to take them to Anthon in the first place. His reaction would have to be predicatable--"I don't recognize these as egyptian". Of what value is that? A better view would be that Martin Harris believed these to be legitimate egyptian characters (and was led to believe that by JS). When Anthon told MH to get lost, JS reaction what what we see in the BoM, 2 Nephi 27: 15-21, where JS attempts to discredit Anthon.

Interesting that He would include a passage to discredit Anton in 2 Nephi 27: 15-21. But the real question is how did Joseph get Isaiah to say it centuries before?

[srm]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 13 2004, 04:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 13 2004, 04:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Feb 12 2004, 10:50 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 12 2004, 08:14 PM

Second, being lacking in FORMAL training DOES show up in how he wrote the BoM--it had literally thousands of grammatical errors and poorly worded passages, which have since been edited out.

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.

This is the Snow that I hate. Sigh...what a phony. You know what Cal meant. Do you do this for your own sake, or for the cattle?

Then what should he have said hundreds? scores? dozens? bunches? oodles? What is a real ballpark figure? Anti? Cal?

[srm]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 14 2004, 09:45 AM

Are you sure that there's no contradictory accounts from these same witnesses floating around?

Why don't you provide some for us...

[srm]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 14 2004, 12:01 PM

1) Why did some of the eight witnesses, who were supposed to be "physical" witnesses of the plates, claimed the event was based on the supernatural. For example, John Whitmer as you quoted claimed that "they were shown to me by a supernatural power".

2) Why does the church now extol the witnesses when Joseph Smith condemned them? (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12-13) ("Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." - History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 232) (In History of the Church, Vol. 3, page 228 Joseph Smith calls David Whitmer a "dumb ######".)

3) What sort of objectivity can the witnesses offer when all (except Martin Harris--who had a financial interest) were related to Joseph Smith or David Whitmer?

4) Why did Joseph Smith say before they viewed the plates they were told, "it is by your faith that you shall view them"? If the plates are physical, there would be no need for faith to see them.

1) Why did some of the eight witnesses, who were supposed to be "physical" witnesses of the plates, claimed the event was based on the supernatural. For example, John Whitmer as you quoted claimed that "they were shown to me by a supernatural power".

I think that this is a good question...I don't have an answer to. However, I do have a statement that he handled, and felt and hefted the plates. Applying Cal's friends razor (Occum)...It seems clear that Joseph had something resembling golden plates. Ancient or not? not proven by this evidence. True word of God? Not proven either. But is seems clear that he did have some sort of plates that looked like Gold.

2) Why does the church now extol the witnesses when Joseph Smith condemned them? (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12-13) ("Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." - History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 232) (In History of the Church, Vol. 3, page 228 Joseph Smith calls David Whitmer a "dumb ######".)

Perhaps because while they regardless of their feeling about Joseph or Joseph's feeling about them they did remain true to their witness.

3) What sort of objectivity can the witnesses offer when all (except Martin Harris--who had a financial interest) were related to Joseph Smith or David Whitmer?

This IS interesting. First you say that they can't be trusted because they had a huge falling out w/ Joseph...now you turn the tables and say they can't be trusted because their all related. It sounds like you're trying to play all angles.

4) Why did Joseph Smith say before they viewed the plates they were told, "it is by your faith that you shall view them"?  If the plates are physical, there would be no need for faith to see them.

Please provide the source so we can discuss it.

[srm]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 14 2004, 11:44 AM

I never knew about the seer stones until I had actually left the Church. The Church may say that he used seer stones, but it certainly doesn't TEACH it. Why would the Church teach one thing, but not the other?

Actually, let me edit that...I didn't know about A seer stone that was placed in a hat, and Jospeh SUPPOSEDLY stuck his face in the hat in order to "translate" the plates.....THAT WERE'T EVEN IN THE ROOM.

How can you possibly believe that a dude, who sticks his face in a hat, is translating gold plates that aren't even there?

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.

When did you say that you left the Church? What were you doing while you were a member?

[srm]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 15 2004, 04:01 PM

Didn't your god say that there were to be only 3 witnesses?

OC wasn't ex'd?

No he did not...This is what he said,

2 Nephi 27

"12Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three• witnesses• shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is none• other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from• the dead.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth• the word of God!"

Thus we see...Three will behold it by the power of God. None other shall see it 'save a few according to the will of God'. this show that God planns to show it to others. and God even reserves the right (imagine that) to show it to others.

This is exactly what happened.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 11 2004, 06:46 PM

When it comes to statements about faith, you have to ask the question, "FAITH IN WHAT, and for WHAT REASON?". Faith without reason is folly!

I really have to totally agree with this statement. Everyone has probably heard that sweet little story about the little girl who's dad disappears into the big hole in the ground and the dad called for the little girl to jump in and she did? Well that is used as an illustration of child like faith. That dad had invested several years into proving to this little girl that she could trust him. Every day he took care of her, fed her, loved her, etc. Of course she had faith in him and jumped in that dark hole! Would she have had faith in a dad who had constantly tried to trick her? Maybe some children would, but different people have different abilities to have faith in something that seemingly has either no proof or has proof invalidating it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by srm+Feb 17 2004, 12:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Feb 17 2004, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 14 2004, 11:44 AM

I never knew about the seer stones until I had actually left the Church.  The Church may say that he used seer stones, but it certainly doesn't TEACH it.  Why would the Church teach one thing, but not the other?

Actually, let me edit that...I didn't know about A seer stone that was placed in a hat, and Jospeh SUPPOSEDLY stuck his face in the hat in order to "translate" the plates

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.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 17 2004, 06:07 AM

I knew you were just waiting to jump on this one. This is why you're so disingenuous. I said:

Didn't some Church periodical purport that OC said something to the effect that JS made it all up? Oh yeah...in 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Times and Seasons, Vol 2, p482. Even if this allegation in ode was never substantiated why would the Church consider it good enough to print? OC was good enough to slander in 1841, but now has to be held up as a reliable witness? Give me a break.

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?

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 15 2004, 05:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 15 2004, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 15 2004, 03:46 PM

I think that when JS was finishing the BoM he realized that someone else besides him had to see the plates or there would be a credibility problem. Boom.  Revelation.  God said he would grant a vision of the plates to three and no more. JS told Martin Harris that the Lord had said, "Martin Harris shall say, 'I have seen them, shown unto me by the power of God"', and if he doesn't, "he is condemned." In intensive prayer sessions with Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all three were eventually bullied into "seeing" the plates by the power of suggestion. Cowdery and Whitmer claimed they'd seen the plates in a vision "revealed by the power of God", same thing with Harris. All three "witnesses" told different versions of their visions at different times, versions not consistent with each other or with themselves. But the most important thing to notice is that no one actually saw the plates in the normal physical sense. They were seen with their "spiritual eyes".  Of course there's a contradiction.  Sometimes they'd say they saw the plates with their real eyes, and other times they'd say that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes.  It's hard to keep track of the lies.

Oliver Cowdery was ex'd after accusing Joseph Smith of adultery. He came to believe that the translation was entirely JS's work, and not a revelation from God. David Whitmer was also excommunicated and Martin Harris left the faith. But the testimony of all three men is still reprinted in every Book of Mormon it attesting to the existence of the golden plates they'd never actually seen. And despite Smith's "revelation" that the vision would be granted to "three and no more", eight witnesses were later added, and their testimony is printed below that of the original three.  Interesting how God keeps changing his mind (you'd think he was a woman   ).

First, none of the official witness ever denied their seeing the plates...secondly, there were a lot more who saw the plates and the angel Moroni than are written in the BofM. The three that are there are only the official ones.

Mary Whittmer was one who had a visitation from the angel Moroni and was shone the plates....as was Emma Smith.

There were at least 16 in all who were visited by Moroni and shone the plates...

I think you mean "shown", not "shone".

[Guest Starsky]

I think you mean "shown", not "shone".

So right!

[elinz]

bizabra, now's your chance! You've caught

her in a lie. She obviously KNEW the word

was spelled "shown" and must have introduced

the error so as to trick us into believing

something that is not true.

Think of all those stupid believers having

total faith in the power of her words and

how devastated they will be when they

realize they've been lied to.

How can you EVER trust someone like that?

No, the answer is simple:

If there is a SINGLE error in someone's

writings you must render ALL OF IT null

and void.

Because if you were to accept any of it

the foolishness will make people laugh at

you.

Do not follow people who teach falseness!

(all tongue in cheek of course! )

[Guest bizabra]

SNORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 18 2004, 08:22 AM

bizabra, now's your chance! You've caught

her in a lie. She obviously KNEW the word

was spelled "shown" and must have introduced

the error so as to trick us into believing

something that is not true.

Think of all those stupid believers having

total faith in the power of her words and

how devastated they will be when they

realize they've been lied to.

How can you EVER trust someone like that?

No, the answer is simple:

If there is a SINGLE error in someone's

writings you must render ALL OF IT null

and void.

Because if you were to accept any of it

the foolishness will make people laugh at

you.

Do not follow people who teach falseness!

(all tongue in cheek of course! )

Touche

[Guest Starsky]

LOL.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 16 2004, 10:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 16 2004, 10:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 16 2004, 09:56 AM

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.

Cal, I'm sorry, did you state something that disproved JS's claim and I missed it? Your assertion that he was a good storyteller is just your opinion and nothing more.

There are just too many ifs and maybes in the antis claims. I have read everything that you have written many, many times before, and it is just not convincing. Maybe it is to some who don't have faith, but to those who have faith, it is baseless. There are just as many positive proofs as there are negative ones. It all depends on whether you choose to have faith in God or not. JMHO.

Jenda--by saying that your solution to the discussion is that you just have to have FAITH is an admission that you can't really defend the BoM with facts and reason.

By the way, that JS was a great story teller is no my opinion, it is the opinion of his MOTHER--read her diary!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 16 2004, 10:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 16 2004, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 16 2004, 09:56 AM

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.

Why should I try and disprove or prove anything to you? You have PROVEN to all of us that you don't want to know anything and will refuse everything we give you...even absolutely unrefutable reasoning, and physical evidence.

Why should we toil with you any longer? Answer that one!

Peace--Please, where is all this unrefutable evidence and reasoning--all you ever muster is bald assertions that you believe the BoM is true because God told you so. How is that evidence of anything to the rest of the world?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

God told me I can drink coffee. He didn't actually appear to me. Or use His voice. It was all done in subtle signs. See, I drank coffee and it tasted very good. Then I was in a very good mood. This continued to happen every time I drank coffee. I tell you, the more I drank coffee, the more I was feeling the spirit! This could have been nothing less than a sign from God that I am aloud to drink coffee if it makes me happy.

God also told me not to pay my tithing yet. His words appeared to me as numbers in an excel spreadsheet (my budget), which showed me that it was impossible for me to pay tithing and support my family. When this sign from God was shown to me, I obeyed him and said that I would not pay tithing until I could afford it.

God also told me that I am descended from primates. I looked into the eyes of a monkey at the zoo, and saw a sign in the monkey's eyes. It was just a look from the monkey, really...but the "humanity" it showed in its expression told me that I was somehow related to this creature. A sure sign from God that evolution is true.

[Cal]

Originally posted by srm@Feb 17 2004, 10:56 AM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document.  It is primarily an ancient-American document.  Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

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.

Jenda--if, as you claim, that the BoM heiroglyphics had been so altered as to supposedly be unrecognizable to perhaps the earlier versions, then WHY could JS have Martin Harris take these to Prof. Anthon and expect him to be able to say anything intelligent about them. In other words, JS, knowing that this was not a language that conventional egyptologists would recognize, why bother to take them to Anthon in the first place. His reaction would have to be predicatable--"I don't recognize these as egyptian". Of what value is that? A better view would be that Martin Harris believed these to be legitimate egyptian characters (and was led to believe that by JS). When Anthon told MH to get lost, JS reaction what what we see in the BoM, 2 Nephi 27: 15-21, where JS attempts to discredit Anthon.

Interesting that He would include a passage to discredit Anton in 2 Nephi 27: 15-21. But the real question is how did Joseph get Isaiah to say it centuries before?

srm--it gets curiouser and curiouser doesn't it? This is one of those examples of very specific prohesies the likes of which are seen NOWHERE in either the Bible or the BOM---that is, the ones which predict things that have already happened at the time of their actual writing in English.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 18 2004, 06:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 18 2004, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 16 2004, 10:09 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 16 2004, 09:56 AM

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.

Cal, I'm sorry, did you state something that disproved JS's claim and I missed it? Your assertion that he was a good storyteller is just your opinion and nothing more.

There are just too many ifs and maybes in the antis claims. I have read everything that you have written many, many times before, and it is just not convincing. Maybe it is to some who don't have faith, but to those who have faith, it is baseless. There are just as many positive proofs as there are negative ones. It all depends on whether you choose to have faith in God or not. JMHO.

Jenda--by saying that your solution to the discussion is that you just have to have FAITH is an admission that you can't really defend the BoM with facts and reason.

I don't need to defend the BoM with facts and reason. To me, there is enough circumstantial evidence to make the story believable, and I don't even need that. It is just fun to read those things. My faith is all I need.

If faith isn't good enough for you, Cal, then you will never be able to take anything on faith. That includes the love people say they have for you, the love God claims he has for you, anything. You will just erode things away till you are left with a belief in nothing.

I really do feel sorry for people like you. You might be a really nice guy, but people who demand proof before they believe in anything are just pessimistic at heart. You can't take anything on faith, and it is a drag.

Sorry. Just MHO.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Feb 18 2004, 06:31 PM

God told me I can drink coffee. He didn't actually appear to me. Or use His voice. It was all done in subtle signs. See, I drank coffee and it tasted very good. Then I was in a very good mood. This continued to happen every time I drank coffee. I tell you, the more I drank coffee, the more I was feeling the spirit! This could have been nothing less than a sign from God that I am aloud to drink coffee if it makes me happy.

God also told me not to pay my tithing yet. His words appeared to me as numbers in an excel spreadsheet (my budget), which showed me that it was impossible for me to pay tithing and support my family. When this sign from God was shown to me, I obeyed him and said that I would not pay tithing until I could afford it.

God also told me that I am descended from primates. I looked into the eyes of a monkey at the zoo, and saw a sign in the monkey's eyes. It was just a look from the monkey, really...but the "humanity" it showed in its expression told me that I was somehow related to this creature. A sure sign from God that evolution is true.

Well whatever floats your boat......now where did I hear that before?

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:32 PM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document.  It is primarily an ancient-American document.  Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

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.

Jenda--if, as you claim, that the BoM heiroglyphics had been so altered as to supposedly be unrecognizable to perhaps the earlier versions, then WHY could JS have Martin Harris take these to Prof. Anthon and expect him to be able to say anything intelligent about them. In other words, JS, knowing that this was not a language that conventional egyptologists would recognize, why bother to take them to Anthon in the first place. His reaction would have to be predicatable--"I don't recognize these as egyptian". Of what value is that? A better view would be that Martin Harris believed these to be legitimate egyptian characters (and was led to believe that by JS). When Anthon told MH to get lost, JS reaction what what we see in the BoM, 2 Nephi 27: 15-21, where JS attempts to discredit Anthon.

Interesting that He would include a passage to discredit Anton in 2 Nephi 27: 15-21. But the real question is how did Joseph get Isaiah to say it centuries before?

srm--it gets curiouser and curiouser doesn't it? This is one of those examples of very specific prohesies the likes of which are seen NOWHERE in either the Bible or the BOM---that is, the ones which predict things that have already happened at the time of their actual writing in English.

Do you think that 2 Ne 27:15 is one of those 'way too specific' prophecies? I ask again, how did Joseph get Isaiah to say it 2500 years earlier?

I'm still waiting for the refernce to Lucy's diary...and how about the actual quote about Joseph's storytelling?