Book Of Mormon Translation - Rock In The Hat.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 22 2004, 03:53 PM

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.

Jenda--you are truely full of crap! Just because I question the literal historicity of the BoM and don't believe in taking on FAITH every little fairy tale I hear doen't mean I don't have faith in my life as a general principle. I guess you have to villify and denigrate those that push you to justify your claims. It must make you feel better. I suspect that you need to do it because deep down you know that what I am saying is true--you can't igore the obvious without some cognitive dissonace, and it eats at you.

I actually have a tremendous amount of faith. I have faith in the love of the God I BELIEVE IN. But my God doesn't demand that I believe in things that are not LOGICALLY believable! Of course I believe in the love of people around me. Why? Because it is BELIEVEABLE! They SHOW ME THEIR LOVE. By your logic I should believe a person loves me, even if he kicks dirt in my face and ignores me when I speak! Faith requires reason. You don't just believe in things in the face of evidence to the contrary! You act as though one should believe in just about anything if it makes you FEEL good! The BoM makes you FEEL good! Well, whoopy! It must me literally true in TOTAL! Drugs can make you FEEL good to. What does that prove? (by the way--I have never touched drugs--so don't jump to any conclusions--as you are prone to do)

Guess I touched a nerve, there, Cal. Huh???

My comment about faith was to show that you have prejudices and NOTHING, probably not even God, himself, would be able to sway your thinking on them.

There are more 'evidences' than you can shake a stick at regarding the BoM, but your heart is so hardened that that you probably don't even ponder and pray about them. There is nothing that will satisfy your hard heart short of a sign that someone might dredge up from somewhere that says "LEHI WAS HERE" (carbon dated and everything). And I even doubt that that would do it for you.

I would be more than happy to have you show me ANY credible evidence that establishes the historicity of the BoM. Something more than chest pounding and puffing would be nice.

[srm]

CAL!!!

I'm so glad you're back! Please help me out. I'm still waiting for a quote and a reference regarding Joseph's story telling from Lucy's diary. Don't leave me hanging Bro.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 22 2004, 07:56 PM

Mr. aJenda,

If there are so many evidences for the book of mormon, why isn't it regarded as an historical account of real people that actually existed and real places that actually existed by the (non-LDS) scientific community? Have you ever wondered why that is?

Maybe it is because it came from a religion and you know how anti-religionist are about giving credit to religions on any plane.

Now, had they found the plates first....you can bet they would have had it announced all over the place...sort of like the dead sea scrolls.

But God didn't want this work to be of the world....He wanted it to be a marvelous work and a wonder through Himself and His chosen.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 22 2004, 03:53 PM

There is nothing that will satisfy your hard heart short of a sign that someone might dredge up from somewhere that says "LEHI WAS HERE" (carbon dated and everything). And I even doubt that that would do it for you.

Actually that one already exists as I recall. The name Lehi was found scrawled on a cave, ancient grafitti really, in Israel around the general time in question.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 22 2004, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 22 2004, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 22 2004, 03:53 PM

Guess I touched a nerve, there, Cal.  Huh???

My comment about faith was to show that you have prejudices and NOTHING, probably not even God, himself, would be able to sway your thinking on them.

There are more 'evidences' than you can shake a stick at regarding the BoM, but your heart is so hardened that that you probably don't even ponder and pray about them.  There is nothing that will satisfy your hard heart short of a sign that someone might dredge up from somewhere that says "LEHI WAS HERE" (carbon dated and everything).  And I even doubt that that would do it for you.

I would be more than happy to have you show me ANY credible evidence that establishes the historicity of the BoM. Something more than chest pounding and puffing would be nice.

Cal, the evidences are too numerous to list. Four or five have been mentioned in just the couple of threads we have been discussing, and a few have been mentioned over the preceeding months.

Like I said, all you want is something concrete, and unless someone found a sign like I mentioned above, there is nothing that will change your mind.

So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked. It has become the topic of the day? If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it? Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better? Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 22 2004, 07:56 PM

Mr. aJenda,

If there are so many evidences for the book of mormon, why isn't it regarded as an historical account of real people that actually existed and real places that actually existed by the (non-LDS) scientific community? Have you ever wondered why that is?

That would be Ms. Jenda to you!

No, I don't wonder, I know. God actually wants us to accept things on faith. You accept the Bible on faith. If something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it is no longer faith, it is knowledge. God blesses you with more faith when you exercise your faith. If that faith leads to knowledge, that is good, but it doesn't necessarily have to.

What are things that you have accepted on faith (assuming you have faith):

There is a God.

God created the earth (in one way or another).

Christ is the divine son of God and died for our sins and rose again on the third day.

etc., etc., etc.

All of these are looked on as fairy tales by the non-religious community. Why is the BoM any more far-fetched than some of these stories? IMO, it is more plausible than any that I listed above.

[Pahoran]

So the book of mormon has many evidences, but it really doesn't, so we should accept it on faith.

I see....

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 21 2004, 03:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 21 2004, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Feb 21 2004, 09:36 AM

I forgive you! Call me old fashion but I'm not into on-line buying - maybe fashion has nothing to do with it, I'm really paranoid.  :)

M.

Fashionable or not, I think that we can all agree that you are old and getting older by the hour. Whoops, there goes the spyderman suit cutting off my oxygen supply again.

Yes, older and wiser by the hour! :)

M.

[srm]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 07:47 PM

This one?

since you say that the church teaches that the U&T are taught but not the seerstone...this copy would not ab accurate to everyone who know the 'church story' because there's no U&T shown either

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by srm+Feb 24 2004, 12:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Feb 24 2004, 12:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 07:47 PM

This one?

since you say that the church teaches that the U&T are taught but not the seerstone...this copy would not ab accurate to everyone who know the 'church story' because there's no U&T shown either

How did you post this picture?

[Guest Starsky]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, dynamic pages in the tags are not allowed....why do I get this message?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 23 2004, 05:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 23 2004, 05:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 22 2004, 08:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 22 2004, 03:53 PM

Guess I touched a nerve, there, Cal.  Huh???

My comment about faith was to show that you have prejudices and NOTHING, probably not even God, himself, would be able to sway your thinking on them.

There are more 'evidences' than you can shake a stick at regarding the BoM, but your heart is so hardened that that you probably don't even ponder and pray about them.  There is nothing that will satisfy your hard heart short of a sign that someone might dredge up from somewhere that says "LEHI WAS HERE" (carbon dated and everything).  And I even doubt that that would do it for you.

I would be more than happy to have you show me ANY credible evidence that establishes the historicity of the BoM. Something more than chest pounding and puffing would be nice.

Cal, the evidences are too numerous to list. Four or five have been mentioned in just the couple of threads we have been discussing, and a few have been mentioned over the preceeding months.

Like I said, all you want is something concrete, and unless someone found a sign like I mentioned above, there is nothing that will change your mind.

So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked. It has become the topic of the day? If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it? Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better? Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter?

Jenda---You keep saying there are all these evidences and yet I haven't seen any yet. BTW, what makes you think I am bitter? You make claims that you can't back up with evidence, and I say, "then why should anyone believe it?" And you think that is bitter? I have no bitterness regarding the BoM. However, I don't mind exposing what I consider a fraud. It would be one thing if Mormons looked to the BoM as simply a book of inspiring stories and allegories; but to try to pawn it off as actual, literal history is to perpetuate a fraud. The LDS need to do what the RLDS have done, and down play the literalistic side of the history. There was a time when it might have been excusable to consider the BoM as MAYBE believable--but with DNA studies, linguistic studies, anthropologic and archaelogical information, it is no longer a viable theory. Unfortunately the LDS church has staked its whole crediblity on the literalness of the BoM, and now finds itself in a position that requires the "you just have to take it on faith" approach. Nevertheless, this is disingenuous because hostorically everytime something looks even consistent with the BoM story the LDS latch on to it like they had just found the holy grail.

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 24 2004, 07:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 24 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 23 2004, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 22 2004, 08:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 22 2004, 03:53 PM

Guess I touched a nerve, there, Cal.  Huh???

My comment about faith was to show that you have prejudices and NOTHING, probably not even God, himself, would be able to sway your thinking on them.

There are more 'evidences' than you can shake a stick at regarding the BoM, but your heart is so hardened that that you probably don't even ponder and pray about them.  There is nothing that will satisfy your hard heart short of a sign that someone might dredge up from somewhere that says "LEHI WAS HERE" (carbon dated and everything).  And I even doubt that that would do it for you.

I would be more than happy to have you show me ANY credible evidence that establishes the historicity of the BoM. Something more than chest pounding and puffing would be nice.

Cal, the evidences are too numerous to list. Four or five have been mentioned in just the couple of threads we have been discussing, and a few have been mentioned over the preceeding months.

Like I said, all you want is something concrete, and unless someone found a sign like I mentioned above, there is nothing that will change your mind.

So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked. It has become the topic of the day? If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it? Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better? Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter?

Jenda---You keep saying there are all these evidences and yet I haven't seen any yet. BTW, what makes you think I am bitter? You make claims that you can't back up with evidence, and I say, "then why should anyone believe it?" And you think that is bitter? I have no bitterness regarding the BoM. However, I don't mind exposing what I consider a fraud. It would be one thing if Mormons looked to the BoM as simply a book of inspiring stories and allegories; but to try to pawn it off as actual, literal history is to perpetuate a fraud. The LDS need to do what the RLDS have done, and down play the literalistic side of the history. There was a time when it might have been excusable to consider the BoM as MAYBE believable--but with DNA studies, linguistic studies, anthropologic and archaelogical information, it is no longer a viable theory. Unfortunately the LDS church has staked its whole crediblity on the literalness of the BoM, and now finds itself in a position that requires the "you just have to take it on faith" approach. Nevertheless, this is disingenuous because hostorically everytime something looks even consistent with the BoM story the LDS latch on to it like they had just found the holy grail.

Cal...Why won't you give me reference for your claim that Lucy's diary spoke of Joseph the storyteller? You know before Moroni apeared to him. You made the claim, why won't you provde the proof? This is getting silly!

[Pahoran]

Can you prove that it didn't happen?

[Cal]

Guess I touched a nerve, there, Cal.  Huh???

My comment about faith was to show that you have prejudices and NOTHING, probably not even God, himself, would be able to sway your thinking on them.

There are more 'evidences' than you can shake a stick at regarding the BoM, but your heart is so hardened that that you probably don't even ponder and pray about them.  There is nothing that will satisfy your hard heart short of a sign that someone might dredge up from somewhere that says "LEHI WAS HERE" (carbon dated and everything).  And I even doubt that that would do it for you.

I would be more than happy to have you show me ANY credible evidence that establishes the historicity of the BoM. Something more than chest pounding and puffing would be nice.

Cal, the evidences are too numerous to list. Four or five have been mentioned in just the couple of threads we have been discussing, and a few have been mentioned over the preceeding months.

Like I said, all you want is something concrete, and unless someone found a sign like I mentioned above, there is nothing that will change your mind.

So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked. It has become the topic of the day? If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it? Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better? Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter?

Jenda---You keep saying there are all these evidences and yet I haven't seen any yet. BTW, what makes you think I am bitter? You make claims that you can't back up with evidence, and I say, "then why should anyone believe it?" And you think that is bitter? I have no bitterness regarding the BoM. However, I don't mind exposing what I consider a fraud. It would be one thing if Mormons looked to the BoM as simply a book of inspiring stories and allegories; but to try to pawn it off as actual, literal history is to perpetuate a fraud. The LDS need to do what the RLDS have done, and down play the literalistic side of the history. There was a time when it might have been excusable to consider the BoM as MAYBE believable--but with DNA studies, linguistic studies, anthropologic and archaelogical information, it is no longer a viable theory. Unfortunately the LDS church has staked its whole crediblity on the literalness of the BoM, and now finds itself in a position that requires the "you just have to take it on faith" approach. Nevertheless, this is disingenuous because hostorically everytime something looks even consistent with the BoM story the LDS latch on to it like they had just found the holy grail.

Cal...Why won't you give me reference for your claim that Lucy's diary spoke of Joseph the storyteller? You know before Moroni apeared to him. You made the claim, why won't you provde the proof? This is getting silly!

The Quote

One Nation under Gods, page 64

Joe Smith . . . . loved hearing, as well as telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans while still just a teen; long before any golden plates had been found:

Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals which could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare, and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.24

The Reference

Endnote 24, page 511

24. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for many Generations [Liverpool: S.W. Richards, 1853), 85, reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996], vol. 1, 296.

[srm]

The Quote

One Nation under Gods, page 64

Joe Smith . . . . loved hearing, as well as telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans while still just a teen; long before any golden plates had been found:

Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals which could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare, and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.24

The Reference

Endnote 24, page 511

24. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for many Generations [Liverpool: S.W. Richards, 1853), 85, reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996], vol. 1, 296.

Quoting Albanes? Come on Cal. He skews what Lucy says.

there are several problems with Lucy's quote and what you (and Albanes) say.

1. You claimed it was her diary. it was not. it was a biography of her son (and her family)

2. You siad that it was before moroni had visited him. This is not the case. It was after moroni's visit.

3. You and Albanes claim that Lucy was saying that Joseph was making up stories about the ancient Americans. This is not the case. Lucy is clearly saying that joseph was relating information that he had received via revelation. Albanes is lying, you should not believe him and you're mistaken.

[Pahoran]

Originally posted by srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:10 PM

2. You siad that it was before moroni had visited him. This is not the case. It was after moroni's visit.

No, he said it was before Joseph found the gold plates.

[srm]

Originally posted by Pahoran+Feb 24 2004, 08:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pahoran @ Feb 24 2004, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:10 PM

2.  You siad that it was before moroni had visited him.  This is not the case.  It was after moroni's visit.

No, he said it was before Joseph found the gold plates.

You are mistaken pahoran. Here is the quote from Cal from feb 16th

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.

[Pahoran]

Originally posted by srm+Feb 24 2004, 09:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Feb 24 2004, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:15 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:10 PM

2.  You siad that it was before moroni had visited him.  This is not the case.  It was after moroni's visit.

No, he said it was before Joseph found the gold plates.

You are mistaken pahoran. Here is the quote from Cal from feb 16th

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.

Okay, you got him on that one. Can you cite the revelation that Joseph received in which:

"He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."

?

Or are you calling Richard Abanes a liar for not assuming that such a revelation was actually given?

[Pahoran]

It sounds to me as if Joseph Smith was making up his Book of Mormon years before he began to actually dictate it. Isn't that what it sounds like to you, srm?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 24 2004, 07:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 24 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 23 2004, 05:05 AM

So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked.  It has become the topic of the day?  If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it?  Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better?  Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter?

Jenda---You keep saying there are all these evidences and yet I haven't seen any yet. BTW, what makes you think I am bitter? You make claims that you can't back up with evidence, and I say, "then why should anyone believe it?" And you think that is bitter? I have no bitterness regarding the BoM. However, I don't mind exposing what I consider a fraud. It would be one thing if Mormons looked to the BoM as simply a book of inspiring stories and allegories; but to try to pawn it off as actual, literal history is to perpetuate a fraud. The LDS need to do what the RLDS have done, and down play the literalistic side of the history. There was a time when it might have been excusable to consider the BoM as MAYBE believable--but with DNA studies, linguistic studies, anthropologic and archaelogical information, it is no longer a viable theory. Unfortunately the LDS church has staked its whole crediblity on the literalness of the BoM, and now finds itself in a position that requires the "you just have to take it on faith" approach. Nevertheless, this is disingenuous because hostorically everytime something looks even consistent with the BoM story the LDS latch on to it like they had just found the holy grail.

I see you refused to answer the question I put to you.

What is it you believe that you can supplant the LDS doctrine with when you pull it out from under the unsuspecting people here on this board?

That is the only thing I want an answer to, because in actuality, for every proof against the BoM that you make, I can make a proof for it. None of your's are conclusive, and none of mine are conclusive. It all comes down to faith. So tell me about your faith. What do you believe in? I am not interested in what you don't believe in.

If you can't provide something for people to believe in when you try to destroy their myths, than you are an uncaring, insensitive oaf. And I want you to prove you aren't. Can you?

[srm]

Originally posted by Pahoran+Feb 24 2004, 08:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pahoran @ Feb 24 2004, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by -Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:15 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:10 PM

2.  You siad that it was before moroni had visited him.  This is not the case.  It was after moroni's visit.

No, he said it was before Joseph found the gold plates.

You are mistaken pahoran. Here is the quote from Cal from feb 16th

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.

Okay, you got him on that one. Can you cite the revelation that Joseph received in which:

"He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."

?

Or are you calling Richard Abanes a liar for not assuming that such a revelation was actually given?

he is lying because he says that Lucy spoke of Joseph's story telling ability. From the context it is clear that that Lucy is saying that the information came via revelation not that it was spinning yarns.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:36 PM

It sounds to me as if Joseph Smith was making up his Book of Mormon years before he began to actually dictate it. Isn't that what it sounds like to you, srm?

Wow! You must really have a lot of respect for Joseph Smith if you think that he (as a child 17-twentish years old) could write a book like that! I'm impressed you feel that way! Way to go!

[Pahoran]

Originally posted by srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:46 PM

he is lying because he says that Lucy spoke of Joseph's story telling ability. From the context it is clear that that Lucy is saying that the information came via revelation not that it was spinning yarns.

I don't see anything there that would indicate that the information was given via revelation. You're just making that up. Stop it.

[srm]

Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:36 PM

It sounds to me as if Joseph Smith was making up his Book of Mormon years before he began to actually dictate it. Isn't that what it sounds like to you, srm?

No, it sound like he received revelations regarding the Book of Mormon people. Before he received the plates. but it is clear that from our history that he continued to receive instuctions about the people and the work he would be doing.