Why so many LDS threads?

I Said: DU states: Now that said, calling someone a plagiarist is a serious charge, one you either need to back up, or retract.

U Said: God handled that trial for plagiarizing the KJV many years back, after Smith's death.

So according to your logic Every one who Died was disapproved of by God? Man is just not doing well at all, Even Jesus' own disciples all died (according to the Catholics anyway)

U Said: Mormons like to trott out Spaldings Manuscript Story, when signed aphadavids show that Spalding wrote many other MS along the same lines.

Spalding's book is the one you guys always like to say Joseph copied, at least until the manuscript was found. Now you say (well they disproved that one) it must be one of his other books! Great, Where is the proof? You have none, just a presupposition that Joseph did (insert any bad thing here) and when we find the facts they will prove it! You guys sound like that guy persecuting the White Lacrosse players, Nifong, "they are guilty because they are Mormon (or white)..."

U Said: With that said, there are 75 similarities between "story" and the bom. More info here:

The Quran contains the story of Jonah, Joseph, Abraham, Noah, Mary (yes that Mary) and much else that is found in the Bible... So they are the same book according to you?

Do you know how many similarities there are within all religions?

You say Joseph Plagiarized the Book of Mormon,

Alright, Present your proof that Joseph smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon, starting with the Title of the book he supposedly plagiarized, then show how when and where he plagiarized it. If you can't then you stand revealed as one who does not speak truth.

Your link http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/wrw/1977DavA.htm points to a book BTW which says that Joseph plagerized Manuscript Found which is an alternate tile for Manuscript Story, Which is where I linked you to in Post # 1650, I also referenced, The Spaulding Theory Debunked there. Back up one thing, just one that you are saying here!

(you have run into red herring over drive mode every time I ask you to prove something, so, Come on stand and fight for just one thing you say, (why not this one!)

I Said: DU states: Now that said, calling someone a plagiarist is a serious charge, one you either need to back up, or retract.

U Said: I wonder if his threat means Joseph Smith is going to SUE you for calling him a plagiarist?

Now that's just being silly, it does mean however that you will forever be tagged as one who makes baseless charges and then can't support your assertions (which may be a resume enhancer in Anti Circles)

U Said: Or does it mean he won't let you pass by him.....

Another red Herring? Can you guys start using Salmon, it tastes better...

I Said: Try to DEBUNK this! (Good luck - you'll need it!!)

This has been answered so many times, wait you are the one who says if you say it often enough...

Now I know why...

it does mean however that you will forever be tagged as one who makes baseless charges and then can't support your assertions (which may be a resume enhancer in Anti Circles)

ROTFL..."FOREVER TAGGED".....oh, my....the "tags" I have been awarded by the mormons here are going to be with me all through eternity? LOL....

Somehow, in that ridiculous charge, there seems to be a PERSONAL attack...for making a joke about a dead conman.

SOME posters here just beg for the......

TAG!

U Said: DU doesn’t respond to me anymore because of similar circular exchanges regarding the Kirtland Bank scandals. Those arguments spiraled into oblivion as well.

I never intentionally avoided you, however since January 1st I have a new son, I tore all the Quads off the patella tendon, and Godzilla keeps posting these Red Herring filled monster posts that take a long time to refute not because they are meaningful, but only because they are big.

I am sorry if you felt neglected, Here, the Ledger of the KSS found, and it exonerates Joseph Smith

Do you feel better now?

I never felt my arguments spiraled down into oblivion, I clearly showed that Joseph acted completely honorably in a bad business situation, for any who don't know what I am talking about:

Wikipedia: Kirtland Safety Society
Fair Mormon: Kirtland Safety Society

Money from the KSS:
Three dollar bill from KSS

These bills are worth over $2,000 to collectors.

U Said: So cavalier about it. You know it was the Joseph Smith Translation. You know it was the part of the KJV that was finished.

I am cavalier about it because it does not matter to me. Joseph Smith never said the JST was finished, and it's not relevant to me.

I Said: We don't claim that the Bible is inerrant, Joseph was martyred before he could finish his translation of it, so what do you have an incomplete work, doesn't fix this yet... (so what? You guys are the ones who claim the Bible is inerrant)

U Said: No, you claim that the JST is divinely inspired and corrects the mistakes and fixes the errors and those things taken out of the bible.

Yep, I claim he was working on it and what he did is very inspirational, but he never said he was done.

U Said: You know mormon history documents that Smith stated with finality that he had completed the editing of the KJV.

Where, got link? Also please link the text that was so approved by Joseph Smith.

U Said: You are the ones who claim to have a living, prophet and seer.

Yes we do, it's a requirement of being the true church, continuing revelation.

U Said: Since Smith claimed to have fixed the KJV in the JST, allowing this to remain is just one piece of evidence that Smith wasn't inspired at all, but a false prophet.

He never finished, and we don't have what he was working on anyway the Community of Christ (used to be RLDS) has not released the original manuscripts, all we have is excerpts. The easy way to find out if Joseph Smith was God's prophet is not to use some man made test, Put our religion to "The Test" in the Bible at First John 4:1-3.

Ask God, after all, who can you trust more about his work than God?

LOL! Simon Southerton the Guy who wrote a book saying the church wasn't true and got excommunicated? Then went crying tot he press as a pump up for his book? That guy, LOL!

It's the only way he could make some $$$$ I guess.

He still never addresses the fact that the DNA in the Book of Mormon as described is not going to test as "Jewish" or he's a quack. I prove that on my page Here

Don't make me cut and past it here, it's big, just go read it.

U Said: DU,
Change my perception of you, and your character.

Admit you are wrong - in less than 37 paragraphs.

Did my wife put you up to this?

In that case, Honey, I was wrong. (now what are we talking about?)

Somehow, in that ridiculous charge, there seems to be a PERSONAL attack...for making a joke about a dead conman.

When losing a debate, accuse your opponent of making a personal attack (from Anti Mormon tactics 101)

Anti Mormons always seem to see more than there really is there:

It is indeed amusing that the poster isn't able to discern his post is a graphic example of his behavior being the exact equal of his accusation. Is that a characteristic of 'a high functioning autistic'? :^)

You either misrepresented your position then, or you are changing it now. you plainly stated in Post 1190 "If you are claiming the bom to be that second witness, then it first stands and falls upon the credibility of the writer – Joseph Smith" and now you say it is "Fair Game" I guess my arguments that the contents might have some bearing on the credibility of a book are finally making their way into your ceranium. Also, you again assert that Joseph smith "Wrote the Book of Mormon" when in fact he only claims to have translated it.

Whatever contents the bom may have been discredited because they bear no resemblance to reality. Yes, Smith claimed to have translated it – how valid is that clam? Not very valid given that he has a history of being a scam artist as well as being proven a failure with the boa, kinderhook plates and the Greek Psalter. Given the convenient lack of the plates to check, just like the previous three items we do have makes it even more evident that there never were plates to begin with.

Does the Bible stand or fall based on the personal worthiness of it's translators? The idea is absurd, yet by asserting that Joseph "originated" the Book of Mormon, you bolster your claim that he should be the standard by which it is judged, thus you beg the question,

Bible translators have something that Smith didn’t – the extant MS in front of them for others to refer to if questioning their translation. Smith’s plates have just disappeared, very convenient. Furthermore, 4000 some ought changes – absent MS to refer to – further indicate that these plates never existed in the first place. So in this instance, you are begging the question.

IT's funny, you guys just can't seem to debate without assuming Mormons are Deceived as part of the assumptions for the debate, it weakens all your arguments because anyone not already convinced sees the weakness of needing that assumption to make your reasoning work.

That is the crux of the matter. I’m not following the teachings of a scam artist who wrote a fictious work from non-existent plates.

I have given much evidence for, you dismissed it, here is a short list of Book of Mormon Evidences from Jeff Lindsay.com. I could do more, but this is going to be to big of a post as it is.

Well, since Lindsay is not a GA and can not speak for the mormon church AND the GA, lead by the living seer and prophet, have not officially recognized these evidences, they do not represent the official views of the mormon church. Have you ever repeated yourself? Was it plagerisem, you again beg the question, if the Book of Mormon is indeed Gods word, can God plagerize his own words in the Bible?

Since the bom is not God’s word any use of the bible by Smith is plagiarism - particularly since he has falsely claimed them a God.

The Bible contradicts itself too, so? Here is a list of Bible contradictions, compiled by Non Mormons

It never fails that mormons resort to atheist web sites and arguments to counter the fact that the bom is not internally consistent with itself as well as other mormon standard works. Whats the matter, cannot defend the bom? Needless to say I reject the atheist’s claims while not providing positive evidence to show the bom is consistent.

Because when they repented and came back he frankly forgave them and welcomed them back into the church, also because they held true to a testimony when there was no reason to and every reason not to except that it was true.

Show me where Smith publicly forgave them.

Really, can you please tell me how many pages were copies of what's in the Bible?

Number of pages depends upon the edition of the KJV he took it from. Actually, I believe that approximately 10% were copied directly from the KJV bible with a substantial additional being reworked passages – I would have to do additional research.

I also note that you have no problem with many of the gospels being rewrites of another gospel with that apostles insights, I guess they are plagerists too in your book...

The work of the Synoptics is not a surprise, nor defense for the bom. Theirs were first hand account of the life of Jesus and as such would be very similar. In the case of the bom, there were no plates and no direct historic linkage – except in the fantasy mind of smith, et al.

Joseph was all but illiterate when the Book of Mormon was translated, the scribes were writing down his words, and there are witnesses.

History indicates his mother was a teacher IIRC. But then that still doesn’t refute the statement - it is likely that the scribed participated in the creation of the piece of fiction.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner can only find 3,913 changes without going to punctuation, of the 3,913 changes most are grammatical and spelling corrections, and to quote the Tanners themselves on this:

"As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text." (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, Chicago: Moody Pres., 1980, p 131

Well since you consider the Tanners as a valid source, why not take a closer look hmmmm? Tanner’s number is based upon a review through the 1981 version, there were around an additional 150 changes made after that. Secondly, I have always included the punctuation, grammar and spelling in that number. Had you read further (if at all) the Tanner article you would see that even these errors were considered inspired

It is very interesting to note that the Mormon Historian Joseph Fielding Smith has claimed that there is no truth in the statement that there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon. He was reported as saying the following at the fall conference of 1961:

"During the past week or two I have received a number of letters from different parts of the United States written by people, some of whom at least are a little concerned because they have been approached by enemies of the Church and enemies of the Book of Mormon, who have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement.

"It is true that when the Book of Mormon was printed the printer was a man who was unfriendly. The publication of the book was done under adverse circumstances, and there were a few errors, mostly typographical - conditions that arise in most any book that is being published - but there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition, and such changes as were made were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith because under those adverse conditions the Book of Mormon was published. But there was no change of doctrine.

"Now, these Sons of Belial who circulate these reports evidently know better. I will not use the word that is in my mind." (The Improvement Era, December, 1961, pp. 924-925)

Of course there were more than a few errors and changes were made that significantly contradicted the first edition over the years. Regarding the printer:

Historian B. H. Roberts has already stated that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was "singularly free from typographical errors" and that the printer could not be blamed for the many mistakes that are found in the Book of Mormon:

"That errors of grammar and faults in dictation do exist in the Book of Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first edition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors may be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be expected in a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the Book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character; they are of the web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is SINGULARLY FREE FROM TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS." (Defense of the Faith, by B. H. Roberts, pp. 280-281; reprinted in A New Witness For Christ in America, by Francis W. Kirkham, Vol. 1, pp. 200-201)

B.H. Roberts, a former Apostle and GA, was one of the most highly respected authorities on mormon history. Your defense is clearly out of step the understanding of those who held higher positions in the mormon church than you. Further testimony as follows:

John H. Gilbert, the man who helped to print the Book of Mormon, claimed that the Mormons did not want him to correct the grammatical errors which were in the manuscript:

"When the printer was ready to commence work, Harris was notified, and Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of manuscript ... On the second day - Harris and Smith being in the office - I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: 'The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.' ... .

"Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once, Grandin supposing these men could read their own writing as well, if not better, than any one else; and if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition and the manuscript these men should be held responsible." (Memorandum, made by John H. Gilbert, Esq., September 8, 1892, Palmyra, N.Y., printed in Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, Introduction)

And out of Smith’ own words:

According to Joseph Smith's testimony there should not have been any reason to make changes in the Book of Mormon. He stated that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning it, a voice spoke from heaven telling them that the translation of the Book of Mormon was correct:

"... we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

As is your mormon history, every thing, including spelling, grammar and punctuation changes were considered by Smith as being CORRECT. Finally, I have given you SPECIFIC non punuaction, non grammar, non spelling examples of CHANGES to the bom – you are strangely silent on.

If you are going to quote the 3,913 number, you are including spelling changes which also happened with the Bible.

In the case of the bible – there has been considerable textural evaluations on the tens of thousands of extant MS from which the translations are based. One can trace out the additions and misspellings, etc from the extant MS – something you cannot do with the bom and none (except for some KJV only folks) do not consider translations to be inspired. Smith’s so-called translation was called inspired, Correct and Perfect

Have you ever written a complex story?....

Thank you for proving that Smith made the story up. There are plenty of non-grammatical changes that neatly coincide with major changes in mormon doctrine (as well as many changes in the other standard works to show the same). Yep, mormon leadership has been making it up as they go.

As I stated earlier, you are wrong, there are people who live there who still call the place Nahom, the place was found by German Archaeologists, then Momrons took the trek, retracing Lehi's path and wound up in the only place in Arabia that matches Nephi's description, as well as finding many of the landmarks Nephi talked about.

The only name the people call the site is Nihm - from the Maxwell inst. article, it is not called by locals Nahom. It was know by Europeans as early as the late 1800’s, being referenced in a 1911 encyclopedia. Furthermore, there are about 25 combinations of words that could be made by adding vowels to NHM. When the interpretation is supported by a reputable archaeological journal, then more credibility can be added. The assertion that it is exactly as described in the bom is a stretch – especially since the Book of Mormon tells me that "Nahom" is "many days" travel from a "mountain" where "wild beasts" lived that is "many days" travel from a "fertile wilderness" near the "Red Sea" that is "four days and four nights" "south-southeast" from a (regular) "wilderness" which is across from a "river" which is near a "valley"... The bom description is vague enough to show that Bountiful could have been in many other regions. It fails to tell us exactly how far the site was away from Jerusalem, which shows that Smith was being careful.

The place (Bountiful) is Wadi Sayq but even the Mormon apologists use a lot of maybes when they say this is the place. Lindsay says that it is the place for it was reasonably easy to get to from Nehem ignoring the fact that the bom says that the journey between the two places was very long and arduous and there was much affliction and the women had children there meaning that they must have got pregnant on the journey for they would not have travelled on a hazardous route if they had been pregnant in Nehem (1 Nephi 17:1). And one wonders what the Lehites were doing staying in tents at Bountiful if Lindsay is right about it being a shipbuilding place (1 Nephi 17:6). God says he will show them how to build the ship ruling out Lindsay’s claim that they could have learned from the people there and Nephi even wonders where the tools are going to come from and God directs him to find ore. All this refutes the whole story. They are using the bom to fake the evidence. This is the very essence of the reverse engineering.

Lindsay says a plausible site for the Valley of Lemuel and the River Laman has been found in Arabia. He admits the river is not much more than a stream that flows certain times of year but argues that the bom like the Hebrew fashion calls streams rivers. But God would be more accurate than that when he translated the bom through Smith. The Book says it took them three days to get there and Lindsay says the 70 mile distance could have been covered by camel in that time though it would not be easy. The implausible thing is that they would not have been in that big of a hurry for they were not being pursued. When the river was named Laman it must have been a permanent river for it was meant to be a permanent tribute to Laman. Lehi said he wanted Laman to be like the river and flow continually into the fountain of righteousness so it was a permanent river for a temporary one would be a bad picture of what he wanted Laman to do. It was a big big gushing wide and permanent river. Only a river like that would inspire Lehi’s thought! However it does not exist.

I have no idea what you are saying here, I guess your Yawn got in the way...

You would have if you would have read the citation by a mormon in a mormon publication.

Chiasmus appears in all scripture,

And multiple other languages and cultures across the world.

people who read the scriptures often will begin unconsciously to speak in Chiasmus, but the chiasmus is never as pronounced or as complex as those found in the scriptures.

Thank you for proving my point, there was all that influence from the KJV, with Chiasmus showing up in Smith’s Journals and D&C……Thanks for further confirming that the source of the bom was the bible.

I thought you said you had read the Book of Mormon...

And it is chloroform in writing with all its repetition.

I have seen very complex Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, want a few examples?

I’ve seen them already - so what! For the linkage to be valid -

1. It must be present ONLY in Hebrew writing. This is not the case – it is present all over the world.
2. You must show that it is exclusively in religious writings – which it is not.
3. Finally, you must show that Smith would not have been exposed to it, which there are plenty of opportunities (even reading the bible as you mentioned above), Shakespeare and other writers have chiastic structures. Since chiasmus occurs in many languages its use in the Book of Mormon does not prove either its Semitic origin or that it is a style peculiar to inspired ancient scripture.

IMHO saying Chiasmus is just repetition is like saying poetry is just rhyming some words and can be accounted for by dumb luck.

It is a pattern of repetition and with Smith’s abundant usage of “and it came to pass” and other phrases. Chiasm loses all of its persuasiveness as evidence for the divinity of the bom when one realizes that it is a literary device which can occur quite naturally in non-divine writings as well, and that an author need not be consciously aware of the device, nor know its name, to make literary use of it.

Spare me your efforts to minimize, when Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, There were no known semetic texts written in egyptian characters, it's something that people used to make fun of the Book of Mormon for, now that they have found other records, it's not worth of comment? Your ability to ignore evidence is ... impressive.

Still no writings that have been discovered as reformed hieroglyphics. Still no proof that there were even plates to begin with to be translated. Those previous examples you gave me, the borrowing was from the Egyptians from the Hebrew, not vice versa.

As far as all your Los Lunas sites go. Several big things are missing.

1. Not even the Maxwell Inst/FARMS recognizes it as a valid artifact. At least as credibility goes between the cookie cutter mormon faith rumor sites, it is a step higher than Lindsey or FAIR.
2. The GA of the mormon church have not recognized it. This is something that your living prophet and seer should be able to handle if it is a true artifact of the bom era. And finally,
3. The web sites themselves either report that mormon investigators have rejected it / ignored it or put forth a completely different theory that does not support the bom at all.

All in all, you are crying in the dark with this persistent foolishness – argument by repetition.

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

Nice try, but as you say – for OR against it, but in this case there is no lack of evidence, it is just that the evidence does not support your claim and NEITHER DOES FARMS or the mormon GA. Follow your prophet – he has not said this was a bom artifact.

I have reasons other than the "evidence", but God not I must show it to you.

God has shown me plenty of evidence that the bom is false and a fraud.

The Cherokee did not know how to read and write Ancient Hebrew, the Masons did not know how to read and write Ancient Hebrew, the Welsh did not know how to read and Write ancient Hebrew.

The first, unfounded assumption is that it really is Hebrew from a purely jewish origin or copied over from a Masonic source. Much writing in support of its authenticity is from an mormon economist

, hardly an individual with the educational background to evaluate the item. Brass bracelets found at the same location were tested metallurgically and do not have the same composition as brass of Roman or Semitic periods (Statement by Smithsonian Institution, Nov 24, 1971).

Read the article, not just for quote mining, but for content,t he writing is unquestionably Ancient Hebrew,

I have as well as other articles and the summation is that the ancient Hebrew origin is challenged by other equally valid interpretations – including forgery.

Let's apply Occam's razor here, Which is more likely, Some ancient language, we'll call it "Whatever" is carved into a stone in the ancient Americas and is just by chance looks virtually the same as ancient Hebrew, and "whatever" they were carving just happens to match the Ten Commandments carved in ancient Hebrew, and on top of that, there just happens to be another stone written in ancient Hebrew dating from the same era found in Israel. Or The Book of Mormon is true.

A rock in the middle of nowhere has ancient writing on it (who’s cited website sources attribute more to Phoenician text than pure ancient Hebrew – Occam’s razor’s first cut – Phoenician, not ancient Hebrew). Now since mormon investigators (as well as its absence from the Maxwell institute/FARMS website) would lead one to conclude that the artifact is NOT a bom related item. As such, it does not prove the bom to be true, as it was rejected as such an object by same mormons. I could go on about Joseph's description of the geography of Lehi's trip,

Already shown to be so vague to mean anything one wants to reverse engineer above

or the records found at qumran engraved on plates,

Copper scroll (singular document) – broken clock

or Chiasmus,

Already debunked above.

You then quote someone who says they think the bat creek stone is a fraud, fine, there are also still people who think the Earth is flat,

Those identifying the Bat Creek stone as a fraud include the Smithsonian Institute..

Can you prove the Los Lunas stone to be a forgery? Can you explain it in any way that makes sense?

The people who’ve set up the websites you cite have come up with other theories that are not compatible with it being a Nephite or lamanite artifact. Mormon investigators agree with me, it is not an artifact.

Really? When did this become common knowledge? Was it before 1835, or after? further you suppose the man giving selling the papyri to Joseph could have told him, Great, can you substantiate that? My understanding is that it was uncommon to find much with mummies in that day because most of the tombs had be robbed later as we became better at finding undisturbed tombs, were papyri commonly found with mummies.

Tomb robbers were interested in the riches – not papyri. The discovery of the Rosetta stone and greater access to Egypt in the late 1700’s- early 1800’s lead to a great interest in these artifacts. It was this interest that drove many artifact seekers, which is how Michael Chandler , the guy smith bought it from, got his hands on it. The meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics became available to the public in 1837, in the publication of John G. Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, based on the Rosetta stone. By 1912, Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York after review of the facsimiles said:

"The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character.
(F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator, 1912, p. 27)

Dr. Flinders Petrie of London University - "They are copies of Egyptian subjects of which I have seen dozens of examples.”
(F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator, 1912, p. 24)

Dr. James H. Breasted of the Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago - The three fac-similes in question represent equipment which will be and has been found in unnumbered thousands of Egyptian graves...

Needless to say that books of breathing were recognized early on due to the vast number discovered.

Really, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should read up on the history of Nauvoo, and the draining of the swamps there, as organized by Joseph Smith.

Sad, sad, sad. History shows that swamp draining was not an uncommon activity. In 1754, South Carolina authorized the drainage of Cacaw Swamp for agricultural use, for instance. Nauvoo took at least 6 years of work to construct and drain. It does not take an engineer to figure out something that these farmers knew about for years.

LOL! Millions have received no? Prove it, I can prove the yes, look at the number of people in the church!

Does every contact result in a conversion???? In July 2005 the Salt Lake Tribune ran a series of articles on the changing demographics in Utah and the growth of the Mormon church. Excerpts from an article in the series, by Peggy Fletcher Stack:

The claim that Mormonism is the fastest-growing faith in the world has been repeated so routinely by sociologists, anthropologists, journalists and proud Latter-day Saints as to be perceived as unassailable fact.

The trouble is, it isn't true.

Today, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than 12 million members on its rolls, more than doubling its numbers in the past quarter-century. But since 1990, other faiths - Seventh-day Adventists, Assemblies of God and Pentecostal groups - have grown much faster and in more places around the globe.

And most telling, the number of Latter-day Saints who are considered active churchgoers is only about a third of the total, or 4 million in the pews every Sunday, researchers say.

For a church with such a large, dedicated missionary corps constantly seeking to spread its word, conversion numbers in recent years tell an unexpected story.

According to LDS-published statistics, the annual number of LDS converts declined from a high of 321,385 in 1996 to 241,239 in 2004. In the 1990s, the church's growth rate went from 5 percent a year to 3 percent.

By comparison, the Seventh-day Adventist Church reports it has added more than 900,000 adult converts each year since 2000 (an average growth of about 5 percent), bringing the total membership to 14.3 million. The Assemblies of God now claims more than 50 million members worldwide, adding 10,000 new members every day.

Russia provides a dramatic example of different religious growth rates. After more than 15 years of proselyting there, LDS membership has risen to 17,000. During the same period, Jehovah's Witnesses membership has increased to more than 140,000, with some 300,000 individuals attending conferences.

When the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, it discovered that about the same number of people said they had joined the LDS Church as said they had left it. The CUNY survey reported the church's net growth was zero percent. By contrast, the study showed both Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists with an increase of 11 percent.

There are your millions of people receiving a NO.

I believe that's exactly why you write such long detailed red herring filled posts.

Ah, yes, mind reading again I see.

Can you honestly say that Anti Momrons have never been led by satan, Forged anything, Stretched evidence, or Findings?

Can you say the same of a mormon apologist? Your example about Mark Hoffman is a broad-brush tactic that only applies to him and cannot be applied to the whole spectrum of those who you define as ‘antis’

Show me a Mormon who forged things to make the church look good and then wound up murdering people, you can't.

Wow, you have set a mighty high standard – Hoffman didn’t kill anyone either. But forgery and fakery is not unknown in mormonism. Better look up Robert C. Webb, Ph.D., fake Egyptologist for the mormon church.

Funny, Where? I know of people who are not published because their work was not good, I also know people who then "Take it to the press………….they get a wider hearing that way than by being published in some dusty journal that's only going to be read by other academics.

Wider hearing does not equal intellectual integrity and unbiased evaluation of the data. Peer review also provides opportunities for others to help identify other things the authors have missed in their analysis.

Let's take a Catholic who works a a Catholic owned College who published a paper claiming that the pope is illegitimate,

First off, there would be other journals outside of the “college” available for publishing – if in deed the hypothetical article is valid and has adequate documentation and logic.

and if they do not repent publicly (for they made their disagreement with the church public), soon the Catholic church will have no choice but to excommunicate them.

You have very little understanding of the workings of the Catholic church, but what you have described fits perfectly with the repression of academic freedom found in mormonism. BYU has been cited as being repressive to academic freedom. If a Catholic were to publish something like that, chances are they would not excommunicate him, but would remove his privileges to take the sacraments.

This same process works for any church, even Momrons, it's human dynamics, and a predictable course. At least in todays world, we don't kill people for believing the world is round...

Meadow mountain speaks differently. However it is clear you don’t have a clue as to the workings of Catholic discipline, so don’t embarrass yourself further.

IF the same standards are used to measure the Book of Mormon that are used on the Bible, the Book of Mormon does just fine. When you insist that a book full of contradictions is inerrant and then say that any new scripture must be in agreement with it (contradictions and all) you forbid God to correct the errors of men and this simply cannot be so, God speaks where you want him to or not, and he has never been concerned about being peer reviewed.

Once again, you call upon the arguments of atheists to defend the bom. And you have no clue as to the difference between the current translations (which are not inerrant) to what was described as the most correct (plagiarized) book in the world.

More read herrings?

Only on your part.

LOL! Again with the misdirection, Joseph did not order the expositor destroyed, the City Council did, and the had good precedent

“Joseph Smith as mayor ordered the Expositor press destroyed" (Brigham Young and His Wives, p.34).

The Prophet's mayoral order, with the consent of the city council, to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor…….(Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1968, pp.212-14).

In a synopsis of the proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council we find the following:

Mayor [Joseph Smith] said, if he had a City Council who felt as he did, the establishment (referring to the Nauvoo Expositor) would be declared a nuisance before night....
Councilor Stiles said ... he would go in for suppressing all further publications of the kind.
Councilor Hyrum Smith believed the best way was to smash the press and pi the type (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp.441, 445).

Smith played a VERY active role. As the Prophet and Seer, he merged political power with theocratic power. Those who challenged that were excommunicated and driven out.

several Mormon presses had been destroyed with less legal precedent, but you don't really seem to care about reality and justice, you seem to be madly supporting your flat earth philosophy just as your side did long ago, logic be damned, keep the status Quo!

You know, I’ve seen that statement thrown about, usually in conjunction with unsanctioned mobs, not an illegal order by a civic government. Please cite some instances for my education.

You have complained about my testimony, asking why mine should outweigh yours or the "Millions" who have received a "No", the answer is simple, and it's contained in the Bible.

I haven’t complained about your testimony, what I have consistently pointed out is that it is based upon purely the subjective – absent the objective. Mormons can be somewhat disingenuous in proposing this test because they would never use it to determine the truth of anything else. For instance, would they be willing to read the Koran and pray about its truthfulness? Why not? Their answer should be interesting. But if this is the test to determine truth, it should work in all circumstances.

I have even been told that if a testimony of the Book of Mormon is to be gained, the person must want it to be true. This is odd since my faith in the Bible did not come in such a manner. In fact, because of the strong message the Bible had for me as a lost sinner, I didn't want the Bible to be true.

Of all people, the Christian should know that the heart of man is desperately wicked and cannot be trusted (Jeremiah 17:9). Therefore, such a subjective method of proving the book of mormon is immediately invalidated by the Bible. Proverbs 14:12 tells us, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.". Feelings can be deceptive, but God put a better way in the Bible.

Acts 17:11 says, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (ESV) Notice that the bible commends these Jews because they examined Paul’s teaching in the light of what they knew God had already said to determine if Paul was bringing the truth. In 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 we read, “Do not despise prophecies but test everything; hold fast what is good.” (ESV) We are never told to determine spiritual truth by a subjective experience because the possibility of being deceived is too great. I John 4:1 reads, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." In this verse the word “try” means to test – like a fire assay for gold – an intense evaluation of objective truths. In John’s specific instance the concern was that of Gnosticism, but the same broader application works here – try the bom by the Word. When this is done, the bom burns away like dross.

If these subjective feelings are the real path to truth, then mormons have no right to judge Christians or other religions who have come to their own answer by similar means. DU’s subjective experience is not superior to the Moslem’s subjective experience. What makes the difference is the testing of the word to the standard of the Bible. And Christ promises that the Holy Spirit will lead you into the truth.

>> When Mormon missionaries were murdered, the moderators were kept busy pulling jubilant posts off the thread. <<

That really is terrible. Apparently, they did a good job; I never saw such a post.

So according to your logic Every one who Died was disapproved of by God? Man is just not doing well at all, Even Jesus' own disciples all died (according to the Catholics anyway)

Putting words in my mouth DU, shame shame.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Spalding's book is the one you guys always like to say Joseph copied, at least until the manuscript was found.

The work cited is Manuscript Story which is different from which is believed to have been used by Smith et al called Manuscript Found.

The Quran contains the story of Jonah, Joseph, Abraham, Noah, Mary (yes that Mary) and much else that is found in the Bible... So they are the same book according to you?

Difference is Mohammad didn’t plagerize the bible for the actual text.

You say Joseph Plagiarized the Book of Mormon, First off, I have said MS was not used, therefore any red herring here is only your strawman.

Detailed investigation into the literary dependency of the bom by H. Michael Marquardt found here:

http://irr.org/mit/literary-dependence-bom-1a.html

Additional input to Smith’s story came from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. Written by a Vermont minister in 1823 (with a second edition in 1825), this fictional story argued that the American Indians were descendants of the "lost tribes of Israel."

Spalding – Rigdon interaction is covered here:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#4 http://www.mormonstudies.com/fragment.htm

And as I said – Manuscript story was not used, but substantial parallels exist (approx 75) and some of these parallels are set side by side - can be evaluated here:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/author3.htm

Chew through the above for a while then.

I am cavalier about it because it does not matter to me. Joseph Smith never said the JST was finished, and it's not relevant to me.

In the History of the Church, under the date of February 2, 1833, we find this statement by Joseph Smith: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324).

In the Church Chronology, by Andrew Jenson, we find the following under the date of February 2, 1833: "Joseph Smith, jun., completed the translation of the New Testament." Under the date of July 2, 1833, this statement appears: "Joseph the Prophet finished the translation of the Bible." In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: "We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).

Mormon writer Arch S. Reynolds says that "the scriptures at that time were considered finished. This is proved by revelation from the Lord commanding the printing and publishing the same ... the Lord felt that the Bible contained his word and also was given in fulness" ("A Study of Joseph Smith's Bible Revision," typed copy, p.17).

See below also:

You just don’t want to believe your prophet DU - HE said the translation was finished.

Yep, I claim he was working on it and what he did is very inspirational, but he never said he was done.

See above.

Where, got link? Also please link the text that was so approved by Joseph Smith.

See image above, in official mormon church history, where the original letter was signed by smith.

Yes we do, it's a requirement of being the true church, continuing revelation.

Sure hasn’t been very functional

Ask God, after all, who can you trust more about his work than God?

Not when the mouth piece is Smith.

LOL! Simon Southerton the Guy who wrote a book saying the church wasn't true and got excommunicated? Then went crying tot he press as a pump up for his book? That guy, LOL!

Molecular Biologist – yep, he ought to know something about DNA and its testing. Of course the mormon church respond as usual - excommunication- probably for some trumped charge like adultery or the sort.

It's the only way he could make some $$$$ I guess.

Typical morg smear tactic.

He still never addresses the fact that the DNA in the Book of Mormon as described is not going to test as "Jewish" or he's a quack. I prove that on my page Here

So you are a molecular biologist now? Here is a summary of his answers to morg charges

http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html

And in specific response to your so-called proof

1. Since according to the bom – all native Americans descended from Lamanites – who’s genotypes and dna signatures would be that of Semetic peoples (Eastern Mediterranean Caucasian). It would not matter HOW promiscuous they might have been, those genetic signatures would remain in the gene pool.

2. Pure genetic samples of the common ancestor group are not necessary – unless you are charting close decendency (as with courts today). Modern genetics look at markers across people groups and work with those markers. And between people groups the fingerprint of those markers change so that they are identifiable. Modern example are the group of Jews in Africa that recently proved their Jewish ancestory via DNA.

3. Zoram and Ishmael – both came from semetic stock, would not matter.

4. The American Indians were not a genetically conservative group, they would marry in vi kings and spanish and europeans, - this is evidenced by the 96.5% figure – post 1492 influence. Cross racial births do not obliterate all the markers. And that statistically, there is a 96.5 % match to Mongol-Asians is too great to try to wave away by promiscuity.

additional info regarding DNA and the bom here (for lurkers, DU probably won't go to read/listen)

http://www.lhvm.org/dna_sci.htm

Morg smear campaign on Southerland here:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_simonsoutherton.html

Other mormon comments:

"Some Latter-day Saints have expressed optimism that DNA research would lead to a vindication of the Book of Mormon as a translation of a genuine ancient document. The hope is that DNA research would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical, or morphological research. The results, though, have been disappointing. So far, DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Genetic data repeatedly point to migrations from Asia between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago as the primary source of Native American origins. DNA research has substantiated the archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological evidence that also points overwhelmingly to an Asian origin for Native Americans. While DNA evidence shows that ultimately all human populations are rather closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and the indigenous peoples of the Americas-much less within the time frame suggested by the Book of Mormon. After considering recent research in molecular anthropology, summarized here, I have concluded that Latter-day Saints should not expect to find validation for the Book of Mormon in genetics. My assessment echoes that of geneticist and former LDS Bishop Simon Southerton whose survey of the literature on Native American DNA also "failed to find anything that supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus." He concluded "the truth is that there is no reliable scientific evidence supporting migrations from the Middle East to the New World." (Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics", American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon)

Anti Mormons always seem to see more than there really is there:

MORMON founder and Leaders DO less than is PRINTED!!

1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

BEHOLD!!!! The Restorative Power of the Book of Mormon!!

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

U Said: Whatever contents the bom may have been discredited because they bear no resemblance to reality.

Classic begging the Question, Whatever your argument is, it's wrong style of "debate" if you can call it that is really silly. Intelligent people everywhere are laughing.

U Said: Yes, Smith claimed to have translated it – how valid is that clam?

If you start with "it's wrong, you can come to no other conclusion than it's wrong, if you start with what are the claims, and what is the evidence? You might come up with a logical answer, let's see where did you start? (LOL)

U Said: Not very valid given that he has a history of being a scam artist as well as being proven a failure with the boa, kinderhook plates and the Greek Psalter.

Now you run from the Book of Mormon evidences to muddy the waters with other claims in true red herring style of Argument By Question. A) please show Joseph's translation of the Kinderhook plates (you can't because he ignored them)
B) Greek Psalter, you mean the Trick Professor Henry Caswall tried to play on Joseph and whose records of the event are all we have to go By? Read this
C) I saved the Book of Abraham for last, because next to the Book of Mormon, it's evidence stands as a testament to Joseph Smith as a prophet. You claim He translated from the Book of breathings because that is the only book we have left after the Chicago Fire, and it is obvious that that Papyrus does not have the Book of Abraham on it. You ignore the descriptions of the papyrus which show the translation was not from the Book of breathings, one of them from Caswell himself who did not recognize Egyptian, but gave a description of the only surviving facsimile from the Book of Abraham go to "Restoring the Gaps in the drawings"
The Apocalypse of Abraham Which Joseph smith would have no way of knowing about, agrees with the Book of Abraham as translated by Joseph to the point that it is obvious they are sister works (you would probably accuse him of plagerisem, except that it's not possible.).

In short, Joseph Smith was not just a guy making up stories, the evidence is undeniable to any reasonable individual.

U Said: Given the convenient lack of the plates to check,

A measure of Man, not a measure of God.

U Said: just like the previous three items we do have makes it even more evident that there never were plates to begin with.

Ah, an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. So if there was evidence you the all knowing pajama clad poster would already know it, since you don't know of / admit to any evidence there is none?

What lottery numbers will win tomorrow in all the states oh great all knowing one (LOL!)

U Said: Bible translators have something that Smith didn’t – the extant MS in front of them for others to refer to if questioning their translation.

Which was precisely my point regarding the Book of Enoch, you claim it was added to and nobody noticed. (Because there is so much there that backs up Joseph as a prophet of God).

U Said: Smith’s plates have just disappeared, very convenient.

I for one find it very inconvenient, I'd love to prove you wrong, but God thinks faith is more important than "empirical evidence", so he took them away so we'd have to ask him.

U Said: Furthermore, 4000 some ought changes – absent MS to refer to – further indicate that these plates never existed in the first place.

So 4,000 "changes" including the creation of verses, spelling corrections and punctuation, makes the Book of Mormon invalid, but those same changes in the Bible don't, Got it. (double standard alert!)

U Said: So in this instance, you are begging the question.

Do you even know what Begging the Question means?

The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

You keep saying Joseph is not a prophet so the Book of Mormon is not true, or the Book of Mormon is not true, so Joseph is not a prophet. They are the same question, just different sides. if you have to assume either one to make your argument, you have begged the question, if on the other hand you say This is how you tell if.... now you are not begging the question, I am I think safe in saying that I have been asking people to pray to God which is according to the Bible. I have not insisted that anyone believe Joseph is a prophet, in order to make my points, you Don't have to already believe Joseph to wonder about the Decalog stone, or how he knew about Naholm and Bountiful. None of my evidence for or questioning people to Ask God requires that you believe as I do for the logic to be valid, in short, you're wrong again.

I Said: It's funny, you guys just can't seem to debate without assuming Mormons are Deceived as part of the assumptions for the debate, it weakens all your arguments because anyone not already convinced sees the weakness of needing that assumption to make your reasoning work.

U Said: That is the crux of the matter. I’m not following the teachings of a scam artist who wrote a fictious work from non-existent plates.

Fantastic example of what I have been saying, Thanks!

I Said: I have given much evidence for, you dismissed it, here is a short list of Book of Mormon Evidences from Jeff Lindsay.com. I could do more, but this is going to be to big of a post as it is.

U Said: Well, since Lindsay is not a GA and can not speak for the Mormon church AND the GA, lead by the living seer and prophet, have not officially recognized these evidences, they do not represent the official views of the Mormon church.

So, let me get this straight (using your flat earth example), if I have say evidence that the earth is round and it has not been Canonized by the LDS church, I can't use it in a debate about reality and truth?

Reality is. Our job is to get our perspective as close as we can to reality so we don't hurt ourselves.

The reality is Jeff Lindsay makes way more sense than you do.

I Said: Have you ever repeated yourself? Was it plagiarism, you again beg the question, if the Book of Mormon is indeed Gods word, can God plagiarize his own words in the Bible?

U Said: Since the bom is not God’s word any use of the bible by Smith is plagiarism - particularly since he has falsely claimed them a God.

But the debate my dear Godzilla is about whether or not Joseph is a prophet and if the Book of Mormon is indeed God's word. By trying to claim Joseph plagiarized God's word, you have to assume that he was not a prophet, thus, again you give an excellent example of Begging the Question... Again.

I Said: The Bible contradicts itself too, so? Here is a list of Bible contradictions, compiled by Non Mormons

U Said: It never fails that Mormons resort to atheist web sites and arguments to counter the fact that the bom is not internally consistent with itself as well as other Mormon standard works.

You have said the evidence from Mormons does not count unless it is peer reviewed, now you complain that the review happened by people who are not Theists at all, so the only "peer review you will accept is if a "Christian" by your definition agrees with us (which would rule them out as a "Christian" from your comments so far). Thus you declare that we have no evidence because the facts were not presented by the "right people".

It's an unrealistic standard, known as "Moving The Goalposts , if the Bible (supported by us both as the Word of God) is internally inconsistent, then it is disingenuous to insist that other works being tested to see if they are works of God be internally consistent, or worse yet be consistent with an inconsistent work.

This is funny.

U Said: Whats the matter, cannot defend the bom?

If the Book of Mormon needed defense, I would not bother, what I am doing is pointing out that you cannot substantiate your attacks, this Argument By Question: Thing that you like to do results in large posts which only prove you can ask a lot of irrelevant questions, and I can answer them, one by one by one...

Which makes for even larger posts.

U Said: Needless to say I reject the atheist’s claims while not providing positive evidence to show the bom is consistent.

Needless to say you have a habit of rejecting claims without disproving them as you do here, the inconsistencies are facts, anyone can follow Links, anyone can see that you deny facts.

I Said: Because when they repented and came back he frankly forgave them and welcomed them back into the church, also because they held true to a testimony when there was no reason to and every reason not to except that it was true.

U Said: Show me where Smith publicly forgave them.

Joseph writes a couplet about Forgiving WW Phelps

Later, when Phelps repented and wished to return to the fold, the Prophet freely forgave him in the words of the couplet, “Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last.”

Joseph forgives Parley P Pratt

I went to brother Joseph Smith in tears, and, with a broken heart and contrite spirit, confessed wherein I had erred in spirit, murmured, or done or said amiss. He frankly forgave me, prayed for me and blessed me.

I can get more quotes, but it's common knowledge that when anyone repents and comes back to the church, they are forgiven by those they have wronged.

I Said: Really, can you please tell me how many pages were copies of what's in the Bible?

U Said: Number of pages depends upon the edition of the KJV he took it from. Actually, I believe that approximately 10% were copied directly from the KJV bible with a substantial additional being reworked passages – I would have to do additional research.

OK, then do the research. You make these unsupported claims, and when challenged, you change the subject, I would love to see you actually prove something you said with more than a circular argument.

I Said: I also note that you have no problem with many of the gospels being rewrites of another gospel with that apostles insights, I guess they are plagiarists too in your book...

U Said: The work of the Synoptics is not a surprise, nor defense for the bom. Theirs were first hand account of the life of Jesus and as such would be very similar.

So if a prophet in the OT can testify of Jesus and talk about him by revelation, and a disciple who sits at Jesus' feet and hears his words directly can talk about him, and they can both copy each others words and it's not plagiarism, but if Jesus comes to America and gives the same message, or if a prophet in America prophetically sees the same thing and writes it down, then they are both plagiarists? Worse, when that record is translated, the guy who translates it is now a plagiarist because he translated what someone else wrote that was the same as what someone else saw?

In order to make the plagiarist charge you have to assume the question being discussed. again, classic Begging the Question.

U Said: In the case of the bom, there were no plates and no direct historic linkage – except in the fantasy mind of smith, et al.

Again with the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam? In essence, your argument here is that if Joseph had plates you'd know about them and since you don't "Know" he didn't have them. Classical fallacy here.

U Said: History indicates his mother was a teacher IIRC. But then that still doesn’t refute the statement - it is likely that the scribed participated in the creation of the piece of fiction.

ROTFLOL! What are you smoking do you have one shred of proof that the Book of Mormon was forged? let alone by Joseph's mother? by the scribes? This is just too good, I'll tell you what Godzilla, you find proof that Joseph Smith's mother forged the Book of Mormon, and I'll post my capitulation on every thread you ping me to for a month.

I Said: Jerald and Sandra Tanner can only find 3,913 changes without going to punctuation, of the 3,913 changes most are grammatical and spelling corrections, and to quote the Tanners themselves on this:

"As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text." (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, Chicago: Moody Pres., 1980, p 131
U Said: Well since you consider the Tanners as a valid source, why not take a closer look hmmmm?

I never said the Tanners were a valid source, I said even they do not claim what you keep posting. I guess since you keep using the flat earthers as an example (which curiously you seem to have stopped doing in this post) you consider them a valid source...

U Said: Tanner’s number is based upon a review through the 1981 version, there were around an additional 150 changes made after that. Secondly, I have always included the punctuation, grammar and spelling in that number. Had you read further (if at all) the Tanner article you would see that even these errors were considered inspired

By whom were the grammatical errors considered inspired? Not by the church at large I dare say and obviously, not by the Church leaders because they are the ones who corrected the spelling errors and punctuation in the Cannon!

U Said: It is very interesting to note that the Mormon Historian Joseph Fielding Smith has claimed that there is no truth in the statement that there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon. He was reported as saying the following at the fall conference of 1961:

"During the past week or two I have received a number of letters from different parts of the United States written by people, some of whom at least are a little concerned because they have been approached by enemies of the Church and enemies of the Book of Mormon, who have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement.
Obviously Joseph Fielding Smith was aware of the Verse numbers being added to the Book of Mormon, obviously he was aware that the Perfectly acceptable practice of correcting punctuation, footnotes, Capitalization, etc. Even the Tanners whom you apparently think are an acceptable source on divinity say:

"As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text." (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, Chicago: Moody Pres., 1980, p 131

Joseph Fielding Smith was saying there have been no changes of the gospel and doctrine in the Book of Mormon, but of course you will hold him to your definition, not his.

<Snip> (I cut out your blathering about differing people's standards for what "free from error" means.)

U Said: Finally, I have given you SPECIFIC non punuaction, non grammar, non spelling examples of CHANGES to the bom – you are strangely silent on.

Funny, I have seen comments on the Bible being un grammatical, and on the doctrine of the Book of Mormon being the same before and after changes like the word "White" being changed to "pure" because the usage in English has changed, but I don't remember specifics from you, if I am silent, it is because such specifics are so surrounded by non specifics that the specific nature of one or two points escapes me. I never claimed to be perfect, please bring out your specific points of changes in Doctrine in the Book of Mormon.

U Said: In the case of the bible – there has been considerable textural evaluations on the tens of thousands of extant MS from which the translations are based. One can trace out the additions and misspellings, etc from the extant MS – something you cannot do with the bom and none (except for some KJV only folks) do not consider translations to be inspired. Smith’s so-called translation was called inspired, Correct and Perfect

So what about other books, like the Book of Enoch, why is it not as revered and inspired as the Bible? We have manuscripts going back into antiquity, we have copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was quoted by Jesus and in all the Gospels, why does that not meet with your standard for something that can be trusted? Oh, because it would support the Book of Abraham as a correct translation...

I Said: Have you ever written a complex story?....

U Said: Thank you for proving that Smith made the story up.

Are you serious? You keep saying Joseph made it up, if so, it's a complex story, I keep saying it's a record of an ancient people. But just for the sake of argument (or debate), have you? if not there are some things you just won't understand.

U Said: There are plenty of non-grammatical changes that neatly coincide with major changes in Mormon doctrine (as well as many changes in the other standard works to show the same). Yep, Mormon leadership has been making it up as they go.

Plenty, I know you will list the word "White" being changed to "pure", so show three. Three changes that "neatly coincide with major changes in Mormon doctrine". Remember, there are "plenty" which is surely more than three. Please correlate them to the "major changes in Mormon doctrine", and your assertion might have a leg to stand on, I won't hold my breath, you have never backed up what you have said here with anything substantial.

I Said: As I stated earlier, you are wrong, there are people who live there who still call the place Nahom, the place was found by German Archaeologists, then Mormons took the trek, retracing Lehi's path and wound up in the only place in Arabia that matches Nephi's description, as well as finding many of the landmarks Nephi talked about.

U Said: The only name the people call the site is Nihm - from the Maxwell inst. article, it is not called by locals Nahom.

Did you watch the video? There is a local on camera calling it Naholm. The pronunciation has a long A sound like naaaaaughty

U Said: It was know by Europeans as early as the late 1800’s, being referenced in a 1911 encyclopedia. Furthermore, there are about 25 combinations of words that could be made by adding vowels to NHM.

Late 1800's is not early 1800's, 1911, are you kidding? you might as well argue that Joseph built a time machine, and came to the future to get a copy of the Book of Mormon so he would know what to put in it. Sure, I can't prove that Joseph didn't build a time machine, but it's not exactly a good argument either.

U Said: When the interpretation is supported by a reputable archaeological journal, then more credibility can be added.

WHY? Science is precisely a history of "oops, we were wrong!" especially when it comes to archeology. Why do you place so much faith in men you have never even met?

U Said: The assertion that it is exactly as described in the bom is a stretch – especially since the Book of Mormon tells me that "Nahom" is "many days" travel from a "mountain" where "wild beasts" lived that is "many days" travel from a "fertile wilderness" near the "Red Sea" that is "four days and four nights" "south-southeast" from a (regular) "wilderness" which is across from a "river" which is near a "valley"... The bom description is vague enough to show that Bountiful could have been in many other regions.

Many days, traveling east from Naholm (NHM), takes you to a Wadi (river) that flows year round, this Wadi flows through a very narrow valley that runs east to west, and empties into the land described as "Bountiful", animals, trees, etc. This is the only place in Arabia known to match Lehi's description, and it's due east of Naholm, which is the right number of days from Jerusalem exactly as described by Nephi in the Book written by him and translated by Joseph smith, you say there are many such places, find two others and we'll talk, just two, you can use google-earth, Joseph had no such technology.

U Said: It fails to tell us exactly how far the site was away from Jerusalem, which shows that Smith was being careful.

Or that since an odometer had yet to be invented (in lehi's or Joseph's time), they did not know how far they had come.

U Said: The place (Bountiful) is Wadi Sayq but even the Mormon apologists use a lot of maybes when they say this is the place. Lindsay says that it is the place for it was reasonably easy to get to from Nehem ignoring the fact that the bom says that the journey between the two places was very long and arduous and there was much affliction and the women had children there meaning that they must have got pregnant on the journey for they would not have travelled on a hazardous route if they had been pregnant in Nehem (1 Nephi 17:1). And one wonders what the Lehites were doing staying in tents at Bountiful if Lindsay is right about it being a shipbuilding place (1 Nephi 17:6).

God says he will show them how to build the ship ruling out Lindsay’s claim that they could have learned from the people there and Nephi even wonders where the tools are going to come from and God directs him to find ore. All this refutes the whole story. They are using the bom to fake the evidence. This is the very essence of the reverse engineering.

Let me get our argument right, Lindsay (a guy you say is wrong) says something that you say disagrees with the Book of Mormon, therefore this is not the place? You truly truly have a dizzying intellect (Princess Bride Quotation).

U Said: Lindsay says a plausible site for the Valley of Lemuel and the River Laman has been found in Arabia. He admits the river is not much more than a stream that flows certain times of year but argues that the bom like the Hebrew fashion calls streams rivers.

So, the Hebrews call small streams of water rivers, Nephi says this wadi is a "river" so it's consistent and that's somehow a problem?

BTW, the River into Bountiful flows year round.

U Said: But God would be more accurate than that when he translated the bom through Smith. The Book says it took them three days to get there and Lindsay says the 70 mile distance could have been covered by camel in that time though it would not be easy. The implausible thing is that they would not have been in that big of a hurry for they were not being pursued.

They were traveling without lighting fire 1 Nephi 17:2, why? Maybe one of the reasons they traveled fast and didn't light fires was because they were not supposed to be crossing this land God told them to cross. Maybe they were looking at their food supply, Maybe Lehi had a lead foot, you may never know why, but it's not a reason to say they didn't.

U Said: When the river was named Laman it must have been a permanent river for it was meant to be a permanent tribute to Laman. Lehi said he wanted Laman to be like the river and flow continually into the fountain of righteousness so it was a permanent river for a temporary one would be a bad picture of what he wanted Laman to do. It was a big big gushing wide and permanent river. Only a river like that would inspire Lehi’s thought! However it does not exist.

The Wadi that flows to the east through the east west valley into the area we think was Bountiful flows year round... That's one of the reasons this matches perfectly.

I Said: I have no idea what you are saying here, I guess your Yawn got in the way...

U Said: You would have if you would have read the citation by a Mormon in a Mormon publication.

Nope, your post still didn't make any sense there.

I Said: Chiasmus appears in all scripture,

U Said: And multiple other languages and cultures across the world.

Many languages have repetition, but Chiasmus is a mirror image in language and structure, not just repetition.

I Said: people who read the scriptures often will begin unconsciously to speak in Chiasmus, but the chiasmus is never as pronounced or as complex as those found in the scriptures.

U Said: Thank you for proving my point, there was all that influence from the KJV, with Chiasmus showing up in Smith’s Journals and D&C……Thanks for further confirming that the source of the bom was the bible.

You really should look before you leap to conclusions that just can't support your weight. The book of Mormon has Chiasmus that are so complex they can only be detected by computer, there is no way Joseph could have written them by himself with his whole three years of formal education.

I Said: I thought you said you had read the Book of Mormon...

U Said: And it is chloroform in writing with all its repetition.

So you haven't read it then...

I Said: I have seen very complex Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, want a few examples?

U Said: I’ve seen them already - so what! For the linkage to be valid -

1. It must be present ONLY in Hebrew writing. This is not the case – it is present all over the world.
2. You must show that it is exclusively in religious writings – which it is not.
3. Finally, you must show that Smith would not have been exposed to it, which there are plenty of opportunities (even reading the bible as you mentioned above), Shakespeare and other writers have chiastic structures. Since chasm's occurs in many languages its use in the Book of Mormon does not prove either its Semitic origin or that it is a style peculiar to inspired ancient scripture.

Why must it only be present in Hebrew? If I told you it was also present in Chinese (JFTR it's not) would you then say see Joseph was actually translating a Chinese record? The fact is that Joseph did not know about Chiasmus, lets look at some Chiasmus from the Book of Mormon: Mosiah 3:18,19:
(Men will drink damnation to their souls unless)

(a) They HUMBLE themselves
(b) and become as little CHILDREN
(c) believing that salvation is in the ATONING BLOOD OF CHRIST;
(d) for the NATURAL MAN
(e) is an enemy of GOD
(f) and HAS BEEN from the fall of Adam
(f') and WILL BE forever and ever
(e') unless he yieldeth to the HOLY SPIRIT
(d') and putteth off the NATURAL MAN
(c') and becometh a saint through the ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
(b') and becometh as a CHILD
(a') submissive, meek and HUMBLE.

Mosiah 5:10-12:

(a) And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the NAME of Christ
(b) must be CALLED by some other name;
(c) therefore, he findeth himself on the LEFT HAND of God.
(d) And I would that ye should REMEMBER also, that this is the NAME
(e) that I said I should give unto you that never should be BLOTTED out,
(f) except it be through TRANSGRESSION;
(f') therefore, take heed that ye do not TRANSGRESS,
(e') that the name be not BLOTTED OUT of your hearts.
(d') I say unto you, I would that ye should REMEMBER to retain the NAME
(c') written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the LEFT HAND of God,
(b') but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be CALLED,
(a') and also, the NAME by which he shall call you

Chiasmus is a lot more than "repetition" as you put it, and "it came to pass" , "and thus we see", and "So we see" are valid English translations for Jewish speech patterns

The Colophon with which Nephi starts out first Nephi is a Hebrew way of Writing and one that Joseph Smith would not have known about, but Nephi surely would.

1 Ne 1:1

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

is a beautiful example of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

I Said: IMHO saying Chiasmus is just repetition is like saying poetry is just rhyming some words and can be accounted for by dumb luck.

U Said: It is a pattern of repetition and with Smith’s abundant usage of “and it came to pass” and other phrases. Chiasm loses all of its persuasiveness as evidence for the divinity of the bom when one realizes that it is a literary device which can occur quite naturally in non-divine writings as well, and that an author need not be consciously aware of the device, nor know its name, to make literary use of it.

in a small, maybe two to three levels deep, but the levels in the Book of Mormon, are not accidental, The levels repeated in Joseph's journals, do not approach the complexity in the Book of Mormon, no one really paid attentino to Chiasmus it was a little if known at all device. Joseph did not tell anyone about the Chiasmus, if he did it as a trick, why not maybe no one would ever notice...

All of this leads to the conclusion that Joseph didn't even recognize the Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as a Hebrew structure.

I Said: Spare me your efforts to minimize, when Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, There were no known semetic texts written in Egyptian characters, it's something that people used to make fun of the Book of Mormon for, now that they have found other records, it's not worth of comment? Your ability to ignore evidence is ... impressive.

U Said: Still no writings that have been discovered as reformed hieroglyphics.

Have the Scientists called it "Reformed Egyptian"? of course not. In Joseph's day the very Idea that Hebrews would write anything in Egyptian was not only novel, but scorned, nowadays however, we know that it happened, maybe even a lot:
Earliest Semitic Text Revealed In Egyptian Pyramid Inscription (Science Daily)
Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters (FARMS)
Deciphering of earliest Semitic text reveals talk of snakes and spells (Jerusalem Post)
Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, by James E. Hoch

All of these could be called "Reformed Egyptian", but instead were given other names, a rose by any other name...

U Said: Still no proof that there were even plates to begin with to be translated.

There is ample proof, you just won't admit it, what do you call a "Broken clock" that is always Right...

U Said: Those previous examples you gave me, the borrowing was from the Egyptians from the Hebrew, not vice versa.

Then read the Citations above, I only included one from Farms, the rest are from "Scientific" sources. Will you retract your past statements now that you are being shown evidence from "Scientists"? I for one am not holding my breath.

U Said: As far as all your Los Lunas sites go. Several big things are missing.

1. Not even the Maxwell Inst/FARMS recognizes it as a valid artifact. At least as credibility goes between the cookie cutter mormon faith rumor sites, it is a step higher than Lindsey or FAIR.
2. The GA of the mormon church have not recognized it. This is something that your living prophet and seer should be able to handle if it is a true artifact of the bom era. And finally,
3. The web sites themselves either report that mormon investigators have rejected it / ignored it or put forth a completely different theory that does not support the bom at all.

All in all, you are crying in the dark with this persistent foolishness – argument by repetition.

Lets take it by the numbers:

1.Why should a religious site interested in faith try to authenticate an archaeological artifact? "authenticating an artifact" and "proving the Book of Mormon true" would damage the church because then Faith would no longer be needed.

2.Who cares if the GA's recognize it as an artifact, the Catholics did not "recognize" that the earth was round for a long time after it "was round" ...

3. The web sites say no such thing, Mormons who have looked at it talk among themselves and are very excited, however, we know that it's not definitive proof like you would require, and thus we do say nope it does not prove the Book of Mormon true, but it sure makes it easier to refute blow hards that say they can prove it false using Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

I Said: An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

U Said: Nice try, but as you say – for OR against it, but in this case there is no lack of evidence, it is just that the evidence does not support your claim and NEITHER DOES FARMS or the Mormon GA. Follow your prophet – he has not said this was a bom artifact.

Neither have I, I have said it was evidence for (or supporting evidence), not evidence of (or absolute proof) the Book of Mormon.

Your argument is classically an appeal to ignorance, you claim to have proof it's not true, yet when we dig into it, your evidence is that once you dismiss (legitimately or illegitimately) all the evidence there is none remaining.

It's just not a well reasoned position, but at least it does not have any loose ends...

I Said: I have reasons other than the "evidence", but God not I must show it to you.

U Said: God has shown me plenty of evidence that the bom is false and a fraud.

Yeah, I have a question for you, what exactly do you say to someone who says they read the Bible and determined that it was not true because of X. Do you then accept their negative testimony to you of something you know is true? or do you examine their experience so you can help them gain a testimony?

I Said: The Cherokee did not know how to read and write Ancient Hebrew, the Masons did not know how to read and write Ancient Hebrew, the Welsh did not know how to read and Write ancient Hebrew.

U Said: The first, unfounded assumption is that it really is Hebrew from a purely Jewish origin or copied over from a Masonic source.

Not really Hebrew? ROTFLOL! Let's take a leaf from the Site "Ancient Hebrew", shall we?

When we compare the script on the Los Lunas inscription with the above inscription found in 1993 at Tell Dan in the land of Israel, we find that the scripts are almost identical. Below is a comparison of the scripts from both inscriptions.

The Tel Dan inscription was written around 1000 BCE. Since the Los Lunas inscription uses the same script, it is safe to conclude that the Los Lunas inscription was written by a Hebrew people about 3,000 years ago. Other ancient Hebrew inscriptions have been found around the country including Tennessee and the Mississippi Valley.

Now, as for Masons, please show any evidence that Masons A) knew Paleo Hebrew B) were in New Mexico in the 1700's or earlier (the Indians who showed the stone said it had been there as long as anyone could remember, and that was the early 1800's) C) a masonic source for Paleo Hebrew listing the ten commandments

You might as well say it was placed there by Aliens in a flying saucer, the Masons planting hoaxes to make people believe the Book of Momorn line just is to silly to be taken seriously (Time traveling Alians is more believable).

U Said: Much writing in support of its authenticity is from an Mormon economist

I don't care who the messenger is, it's the message that is important. you seem to be hung up on authentication by men

U Said: , hardly an individual with the educational background to evaluate the item. Brass bracelets found at the same location were tested metallurgically and do not have the same composition as brass of Roman or Semitic periods (Statement by Smithsonian Institution, Nov 24, 1971).

So? you actually expect Brass made in America to be the same "metallurgically" as brass made in Europe at the same time? LOL! We can't even reliably do that now, have you followed the problems Airbus is having with their plane made from parts manufactured in multiple countries?

I Said: Read the article, not just for quote mining, but for content, the writing on the stone is unquestionably Ancient Hebrew,

U Said: I have as well as other articles and the summation is that the ancient Hebrew origin is challenged by other equally valid interpretations – including forgery.

Let's address the forgery thing, the Smithsonian has rubbings taken in the mid 1800's form the stone that became known from Indians who said it had been there as long as anyone can remember, the rubbings were seen by a Jewish scholar who had been working on the Tel Dan inscription, he immediately went to see the stone and translated it, this was early 1900's. Now how in the name of mike does someone forge an engraving in a language no one reads and plant it hoping someone will someday be able to read it. Unless the forger has a time machine it's an impossible forgery to pull off.

I Said: Let's apply Occam's razor here, Which is more likely, Some ancient language, we'll call it "Whatever" is carved into a stone in the ancient Americas and is just by chance looks virtually the same as ancient Hebrew, and "whatever" they were carving just happens to match the Ten Commandments carved in ancient Hebrew, and on top of that, there just happens to be another stone written in ancient Hebrew dating from the same era found in Israel. Or The Book of Mormon is true.

U Said: A rock in the middle of nowhere has ancient writing on it (who’s cited website sources attribute more to Phoenician text than pure ancient Hebrew – Occam’s razor’s first cut – Phoenician, not ancient Hebrew). There are other letters in it, absolutely, but saying the whole thing is phonecian is laughable.

U Said: Now since Mormon investigators (as well as its absence from the Maxwell institute/FARMS website) would lead one to conclude that the artifact is NOT a bom related item.

Another Argumentum ad Ignorantiam Maxwell does not try to cover everything, and just because they do not say it is does not mean the say it isn't, it means they didn't say. Let's put it this way I have never heard you deny being an extremist Muslim, therefore you are a terrorist, because you didn't deny it. This is an "argument" that is consistent with your style.

U Said: As such, it does not prove the bom to be true, as it was rejected as such an object by same Mormons.

Like the flat earethers, you deny individual pieces of evidence so that when the time comes to reach a conclusion you can say no evidence knowing that if all the evidence is allowed to reach the conclusion process the answer will inevitably disagree with your predetermined beliefs.

I Said: I could go on about Joseph's description of the geography of Lehi's trip,

U Said: Already shown to be so vague to mean anything one wants to reverse engineer above

Already dismissed by you, apparently, because you can't let the evidence stand on it's own, it's specific enough that people can follow it, you just don't want to admit it when you are wrong, and you are, the Book of Mormon is God's word no matter how hard you "kick against the pricks".

I Said: or the records found at qumran engraved on plates,

U Said: Copper scroll (singular document) – broken clock

What do you call a broken clock that's always right... not broken.

I Said: or Chiasmus,

U Said: Already debunked above.

Already dismissed illegitimately above... and that dismissal was shown to be flawed thinking on your part, above.

I Said: You then quote someone who says they think the bat creek stone is a fraud, fine, there are also still people who think the Earth is flat,

U Said: Those identifying the Bat Creek stone as a fraud include the Smithsonian Institute..

Please show where the Smithsonian officially says it's a fraud.

I Said: Can you prove the Los Lunas stone to be a forgery? Can you explain it in any way that makes sense?

U Said: The people who’ve set up the websites you cite have come up with other theories that are not compatible with it being a Nephite or lamanite artifact. Mormon investigators agree with me, it is not an artifact.

Mormon investigators agree it's not definitive proof that the Book of Mormon is true, that does not mean they think it's a forgery. I'll also point out that the top of the mesa is an ancient walled city, maybe if we look real heard we'll find Nephi was here inscribed on a wall in ancient Hebrew nad a street sign with Zarahemla city on it and then you'll clue.

I Said: Really? When did this become common knowledge? Was it before 1835, or after? further you suppose the man giving selling the papyri to Joseph could have told him, Great, can you substantiate that? My understanding is that it was uncommon to find much with mummies in that day because most of the tombs had be robbed later as we became better at finding undisturbed tombs, were papyri commonly found with mummies.

U Said: Tomb robbers were interested in the riches – not papyri.

Museum's go to great pains to keep oxygen and water, etc from getting on mummies and documents, grave robbers? Not so much, they left tombs open and the stuff they didn't value was often destroyed.

U Said: The discovery of the Rosetta stone and greater access to Egypt in the late 1700’s- early 1800’s lead to a great interest in these artifacts. It was this interest that drove many artifact seekers, which is how Michael Chandler , the guy smith bought it from, got his hands on it. The meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics became available to the public in 1837, in the publication of John G. Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, based on the Rosetta stone. By 1912, Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York after review of the facsimiles said:

Was that the facsimiles from the Book of the dead or the actual scroll that was destroyed in the Chicago fire?

(stay tuned for accusations that Mormons started the Chicago fire to cover up the book of Abraham's papyri, LOL!)

U Said: "The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.

do you even know what an unsupported assertion is? try this as an example: Your post it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. So?

U Said: Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri,

Actually, I guess they look the same to an untrained eye, but there are several important difference in the cuts, difference you dismiss as "mistakes".

U Said: and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character.

The "disk" nor the Book of the dead included with the mummies were what was described as the scroll Joseph was translating into the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham as translated by Joseph closely matches The Apocalypse of Abraham, which unless you want to inject the time traveling aliens back into the mix there is just no good way for Joseph to know about.

U Said: Dr. Flinders Petrie of London University - "They are copies of Egyptian subjects of which I have seen dozens of examples.”

Yep, I am sure he said that, so what? he was not being shown the scroll Joseph translated it had red writing on it, the Book of the dead is always all black.

U Said: Needless to say that books of breathing were recognized early on due to the vast number discovered.

Yep, they were and one was with the papyri Joseph translated, that just was not the scroll, are you listening, or does telling you The truth matter?

I Said: Really, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should read up on the history of Nauvoo, and the draining of the swamps there, as organized by Joseph Smith.

U Said: Sad, sad, sad. History shows that swamp draining was not an uncommon activity. In 1754, South Carolina authorized the drainage of Cacaw Swamp for agricultural use, for instance. Nauvoo took at least 6 years of work to construct and drain. It does not take an engineer to figure out something that these farmers knew about for years.

Except that it had been tried before and failed, you have to see the system to understand, I lived near Nauvoo for a while, I've seen what they did and it was amazing.

I Said: LOL! Millions have received no? Prove it, I can prove the yes, look at the number of people in the church!

U Said: Does every contact result in a conversion????

Does everyone who reads the Bible become a Christian? Same answer...

U Said: In July 2005 the Salt Lake Tribune ran a series of articles on the changing demographics in Utah and the growth of the Mormon church. Excerpts from an article in the series, by Peggy Fletcher Stack:

So? What does growth rate have to do with truth, this is nothing but a huge Red Herring.

U Said: The claim that Mormonism is the fastest-growing faith in the world has been repeated so routinely by sociologists, anthropologists, journalists and proud Latter-day Saints as to be perceived as unassailable fact.

I have never said that.

U Said: The trouble is, it isn't true.

Yeah well, so you say, and you say, and you say, but when the facts are looked at you are still wrong no matter how often you say you're right.

<Snip> you include a bunch of words that basically say the LDS church is not growing at all and may be shrinking.

U Said: There are your millions of people receiving a NO.

so millions because no one ever leaves the LDS church without a reason besides getting a no through revelation? BWAHAHAHA! I have yet to see an Ex Mormon say that, show me a post by someone before I posted this that says they left the church after receiving a yes because they now got a "no", go on, show me one...

Now you are Asserting the Consequent The logic goes thus, if people received a testimony that the Bible was false they would leave Christianity, there are people leaving Christianity, therefore they received a testimony that the Bible was false. (In your logic the Mormons are Christianity, and the Bible is the Book of Mormon, but I used Bible and Christian to show the fallacious nature of your argument.

I Said: I believe that's exactly why you write such long detailed red herring filled posts.

U Said: Ah, yes, mind reading again I see.

I am free to state what I believe which is what I did, no mind reading necessary when your actions speak far louder than your words.

I Said: Can you honestly say that Anti Momrons have never been led by Satan, Forged anything, Stretched evidence, or Findings?

U Said: Can you say the same of a Mormon apologist? Your example about Mark Hoffman is a broad-brush tactic that only applies to him and cannot be applied to the whole spectrum of those who you define as ‘antis’

None that I am aware of, then again, I have not searched, I am however aware of some on this very forum who have stated that when it comes to defeating Mormonism, no tactic is to be ignored for the ends justify the means.

Personally, I believe that the means must always justify themselves, I believe that often the tone of a post means as much to lurkers as the message.

Now as to Mark, that would be true if when an anti here is told that a document they are trying to discredit the church with was forged by Mark Hoffman, they stopped using it, but when you see the same forged stuff recycled over and over by people, when you see the same quote mines posted over and over by the same people who were refuted last time, well you begin to suspect that the only reason they do not have new material is that they do not possess the skills to forge it. I Said: Show me a Mormon who forged things to make the church look good and then wound up murdering people, you can't.

U Said: Wow, you have set a mighty high standard – Hoffman didn’t kill anyone either. But forgery and fakery is not unknown in mormonism. Better look up Robert C. Webb, Ph.D., fake Egyptologist for the mormon church.

Mark Hoffman murdered two people. This is the top paragraph on his wikipedia page:

Mark William Hofmann (born 7 December 1954) is an American counterfeiter, forger and murderer. Widely regarded as one of the most accomplished forgers in history, Hofmann is especially noted for his forgery of documents related to the history of the Latter Day Saint movement.[1] When Hofmann's schemes began to unravel, he used bombs to murder two people in Salt Lake City, Utah. As of 2008, he is serving a life sentence at the Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah.

Mark Hoffman is the guy who wrote the Salamander letter and several other documents that anti's still use today in attacking the church. This kind of behavior is not to be found among Mormons, they would be excommunicated.

As for Robert C Webb, the church holds a position, anti's come up with eight "scholars" to dispute a translation from scrolls they don't have to examine, and this guy who is at the time published under the name "Robert C. Webb" supports their position so they quote from him, and he sells more books before being found out as a fraud. Many anti sites say he was a "Mormon writer", however, I find no evidence that he was a member of the church. once his deception was discovered, the church regretted ever quoting him.

Again I will say "Show me a Mormon who forged things to make the church look good and then wound up murdering people, you can't."

I Said: Funny, Where? I know of people who are not published because their work was not good, I also know people who then "Take it to the press…………. they get a wider hearing that way than by being published in some dusty journal that's only going to be read by other academics.

U Said: Wider hearing does not equal intellectual integrity and unbiased evaluation of the data. Peer review also provides opportunities for others to help identify other things the authors have missed in their analysis.

God does not require others to help him with things he "missed". People on the other hand, especially college professors need to be published and need for people to see what they publish, as long as it is not made fun of, they don't care, because it means money, if they can stir up a controversy off campus, that's good too, it means money.

I Said: Let's take a Catholic who works a a Catholic owned College who published a paper claiming that the pope is illegitimate,

U Said: First off, there would be other journals outside of the “college” available for publishing – if in deed the hypothetical article is valid and has adequate documentation and logic.

LOL!

I Said: and if they do not repent publicly (for they made their disagreement with the church public), soon the Catholic church will have no choice but to excommunicate them.

U Said: You have very little understanding of the workings of the Catholic church, but what you have described fits perfectly with the repression of academic freedom found in Mormonism. BYU has been cited as being repressive to academic freedom. If a Catholic were to publish something like that, chances are they would not excommunicate him, but would remove his privileges to take the sacrament.

That's the third step with us, but if they persist, then there is no place the Catholics can go except excommunication, it's happened before, the Catholic church used to threaten kings with it if they didn't get their way too.

I Said: This same process works for any church, even Mormons, it's human dynamics, and a predictable course. At least in todays world, we don't kill people for believing the world is round...

U Said: Meadow mountain speaks differently.

The meadow mountain massacre while a terrible atrocity was not over the shape of the earth, or even ideology, there were men in the group who were claiming to have raped and murdered friends of the people of the area, there were reported threats against the people of the area, what were they supposed to do? Well they over reacted, to say the least, but it was not over some ideological precept it was over rape and murder and threats of more.

U Said: However it is clear you don’t have a clue as to the workings of Catholic discipline, so don’t embarrass yourself further.

Wikipedia on excommunication in the Roman Catholic church

Excommunication

Excommunication, in the sense of a formal proceeding, is not a penalty at all but simply a formal proclamation of a pre-existing condition in a more or less prominent member of the Roman Catholic Church. When such a person commits acts that in themselves separate him from the communion of the Faithful, particularly when by word, deed, or example he "spreads division and confusion among the Faithful", it is necessary for the Church to clarify the situation by means of a formal announcement, which informs the laity that this is not a person to follow, and notifies the clergy that this person, by his own willful acts, has separated himself from the Church and is no longer to receive the sacrament, with the exception of Reconciliation. The decree may also indicate the mode of Reconciliation required for re-entry into the Church, specifying whether the local bishop may administer the process or it is reserved to the Pope. In other words, the Church never throws anybody out; but from time to time she must make it plain that a person has thrown himself out. Excommunication is never a merely "vindictive penalty" (designed solely to punish), but is always a "medicinal penalty" intended to pressure the person into changing their behavior or statements, repent and return to full communion.

So couched in the Kindest terms, someone who says the Pope is not really God's emissary is excommunicated, not as punishment, but because that someone already separated themselves from the church, yeah, that's how we'll say it...

The Catholic church recommends excommunication for anyone who denies that abortion is immoral... (agree or be excommunicated?)

Abortion and excommunication

Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication.

Catholic punishment of religious institutions that don't measure up to Catholic ideals:

The Bishops' Disciplinary Options
What Can Be Done When Catholic Institutions Aren't?
There are several avenues open to the bishop in dealing with a disobedient institution or community. If the locus of the problem is in one or several teachers of religion, canon 805 gives the bishop, in the case of Catholic schools, the explicit right to "remove them or demand that they be removed." Canon 810 charges bishops with the "duty [emphasis added] to see to it" that professors in Catholic colleges who lack in sound doctrine "are removed from office." If the locus of the problem is in members of the religious community, canon 679 provides a very effective weapon in the bishop's arsenal, for it states that "for the gravest of reasons a diocesan bishop can forbid a member of a religious institute to remain in his diocese, provided that the person's major superior has been informed and has failed to act...". It is, of course, for the bishop to judge what the "gravest" of reasons might be, but it could surely be argued that endorsing notorious dissenters, engaging in material cooperation in sin, publicly defying Church authority, and sowing confusion and scandal among the faithful constitute grave matter.

I Said: If the same standards are used to measure the Book of Mormon that are used on the Bible, the Book of Mormon does just fine. When you insist that a book full of contradictions is inerrant and then say that any new scripture must be in agreement with it (contradictions and all) you forbid God to correct the errors of men and this simply cannot be so, God speaks where you want him to or not, and he has never been concerned about being peer reviewed.

U Said: Once again, you call upon the arguments of atheists to defend the bom. And you have no clue as to the difference between the current translations (which are not inerrant) to what was described as the most correct (plagiarized) book in the world.

ROTFLLOL! If contradictions in the Book of Mormon prove it false, then contradictions in the Bible do like wise. If a prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled in the Book of Mormon proves it false then an unfulfilled prophecy in the Bible should likewise prove it false. You can not seem to see that you are applying a double standard, so instead you want to go back to the plagiarist charge which presupposed that God was not inspiring the Book of Mormon, and again you are Begging the Question. I Said: More red herrings?

U Said: Only on your part.

Really? This post of your jumps around more than a cat with double sided tape on it's feet.

I Said: LOL! Again with the misdirection, Joseph did not order the expositor destroyed, the City Council did, and the had good precedent

U Said: “Joseph Smith as mayor ordered the Expositor press destroyed" (Brigham Young and His Wives, p.34).

The Prophet's mayoral order, with the consent of the city council, to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor…….(Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1968, pp.212-14).

In a synopsis of the proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council we find the following:

Mayor [Joseph Smith] said, if he had a City Council who felt as he did, the establishment (referring to the Nauvoo Expositor) would be declared a nuisance before night....
Councilor Stiles said ... he would go in for suppressing all further publications of the kind.
Councilor Hyrum Smith believed the best way was to smash the press and pi the type (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp.441, 445).

Smith played a VERY active role. As the Prophet and Seer, he merged political power with theocratic power. Those who challenged that were excommunicated and driven out.

Nobody said Joseph was not involved, why create the straw man that we did? Wikipedia: Nauvoo Expositor

The bulk of the Expositor's single issue was devoted to criticism of Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement and the mayor of Nauvoo. After two days of consultation, Smith and the Nauvoo city council voted on June 10, 1844 to declare the paper a public nuisance, and ordered the paper's printing press destroyed.[1] The town marshal carried out the order that evening.[2] These actions generated considerable disturbance, and culminated in Smith's assassination by a vigilante group while he was in legal custody and awaiting a trial in nearby Carthage.

They deliberated for two days! They were sure they had the right to do so, this was no hasty action as your quotes would indicate.

Here is one example of a "Mormon press" being destroyed without much (if any) deliberation. Independence, Missouri

On July 20, four to five hundred non-Mormon citizens met at the courthouse in Independence. They drafted a document that said that no more Mormons were going to be allowed into the area, and those that were already living there must agree to leave as soon as they could. The Church leaders of the area were surprised by the document and asked for three months to find out what the Church leaders in Ohio would advise them to do, but this request was denied. They then asked for ten days, this was also denied. They were given only fifteen minutes to decide whether or not they should agree to the terms. The non-Mormon meeting quickly turned into a mob and they destroyed the printing office and press. They destroyed copies of the Book of Commandments and manuscripts. Luckily two sisters saw some of the unbound books and took as many as they could and hid with them in a cornfield. The mob then went searching for the leaders of the Church. Bishop Edward Partridge and Charles Allen were tarred and feathered by the mob because they would not denounce the Book of Mormon.

With this and other press destructions recently having been visited upon them, the two days of deliberations seems a long time in my mind to wait to decide to act. YMMV.

I Said: several Mormon presses had been destroyed with less legal precedent, but you don't really seem to care about reality and justice, you seem to be madly supporting your flat earth philosophy just as your side did long ago, logic be damned, keep the status Quo!

U Said: You know, I’ve seen that statement thrown about, usually in conjunction with unsanctioned mobs, not an illegal order by a civic government. Please cite some instances for my education.

LOL! Who was prosecuting the Mobs who destroyed presses? Who defended the Mormons who were kicked out of their homes so a Non Mormon could move in? The "Law" did nothing to stop this illegal destruction, assault, battery and outright thievery by Non Mormons. I bear these men no ill will, I'm sure They have much more pressing matters at present then any imagined outrage I might drum up being separated from them by time as I am, I am merely an onlooker of history, however, to deny these kinds of events had no connection with the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, is to willfully shut your eyes to the truth. These events were vivid in the memories of those who had just participated in them, and cannot be simply dismissed as, well that was a MOB... mobs don't come and go and leave no evidence surely those who were tarred and feathered for their faith could describe or even knew some of their attackers. Surely bystanders could have been located who recognized a face, a gun-stock or a horse, but nothing was done, thus with the blessing of the established legal authorities, The Nauvoo city council spends two days debating the issue? then rashly does something they thought they had no legal right to do?

COME ON YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

I Said: You have complained about my testimony, asking why mine should outweigh yours or the "Millions" who have received a "No", the answer is simple, and it's contained in the Bible.

U Said: I haven’t complained about your testimony, what I have consistently pointed out is that it is based upon purely the subjective – absent the objective.

subjective
Objective

I have been in classes where it was argued that all experience is subjective, right down to whether or not we individually exist. Such discussions now quickly bore me. I Exist. I am who I perceive myself to be. God answered my prayer with a concrete answer which is no open to interpretation by you or Me.

You are wrong again. U Said: Mormons can be somewhat disingenuous in proposing this test because they would never use it to determine the truth of anything else.

Like I did for the Bible? This is a specific test, for God's word, not for what to wear today...

U Said: For instance, would they be willing to read the Koran and pray about its truthfulness? Why not? Their answer should be interesting.

Sure, if the Muslim giving me the Koran was going to read and sincerely pray about the Book of Mormon and the Bible, I'd read his Koran and sincerely pray about it, that's how I graduated from a Buddhist Monastery in Taiwan...

U Said: But if this is the test to determine truth, it should work in all circumstances.

What makes you say that, this is a test to determine God's truth, not a cheat sheet for True / False tests at College.

U Said: I have even been told that if a testimony of the Book of Mormon is to be gained, the person must want it to be true. This is odd since my faith in the Bible did not come in such a manner.

So what do you say to people who read the Bible and say it's not true, we have several atheists here on FR, let me ping Legrande for you...

Legrand, would you tell Godzilla why you don't think the Bible is God's word? I'd love to see him explain how you should know it's true.

U Said: In fact, because of the strong message the Bible had for me as a lost sinner, I didn't want the Bible to be true.

Yep, some people can find out the Book of Mormon is true the same way, some need to show a little faith first, it's not a one size fits all thing, God's answers are the same, perfect for the person he's answering, not a one method fits all way of answering either.

U Said: Of all people, the Christian should know that the heart of man is desperately wicked and cannot be trusted (Jeremiah 17:9).

Yes, but God absolutely can be trusted... A Christian should know that too.

U Said: Therefore, such a subjective method of proving the book of Mormon is immediately invalidated by the Bible.

An answer from God is not a subjective thing, it's more like getting hit with a two by four upside the head, you don't wonder if it happened or if you made it up.

U Said: Proverbs 14:12 tells us, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.".

Yep, that's why we have to use God's methods to try the spirits or we end up listening to ourselves or worse, the enemy.

U Said: Feelings can be deceptive, but God put a better way in the Bible.

He sure did: First John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

U Said: Acts 17:11 says, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (ESV) Notice that the bible commends these Jews because they examined Paul’s teaching in the light of what they knew God had already said to determine if Paul was bringing the truth. In 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 we read, “Do not despise prophecies but test everything; hold fast what is good.” (ESV)

I intend to do exactly that, I have tested, I have investigated, I have received an answer direct from God, My answer specifically met with all the criteria the Bible says to look for in First John 4:1-3. I don't know how you expect to compete with a testimony direct from God, you are not even in the same ball park as my testimony from God.

U Said: We are never told to determine spiritual truth by a subjective experience because the possibility of being deceived is too great. I John 4:1 reads, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." In this verse the word “try” means to test – like a fire assay for gold – an intense evaluation of objective truths. In John’s specific instance the concern was that of Gnosticism, but the same broader application works here – try the bom by the Word. When this is done, the bom burns away like dross.

I notice you specifically exclude the way John tells you how to know if something is of God or not, I don't. John gives the test, John gives the answer of how to know, forgive me for taking his word over yours.

As for Subjective feelings not being Biblical, you are forgetting Luke 24:13-35, a burning in the bosom or heart is specifically mentioned in the Bible as a way to know God is with you. Oh what a wicked day it is when men who would follow God are so deceived bye the world that they cannot understand plain scriptures which are easy to understand but chop them to bits and internet them with their "knowledge".

U Said: If these subjective feelings are the real path to truth, then Mormons have no right to judge Christians or other religions who have come to their own answer by similar means.

I have never judged you in anything more than your tactics in debate here, your soul's disposition is between you and that God who gave you birth.

U Said: DU’s subjective experience is not superior to the Muslim’s subjective experience.

and your book of truth (the bible) cannot be proven any more true than the Koran by scientific means, so?

U Said: What makes the difference is the testing of the word to the standard of the Bible.

Or if you are a Muslim to the standard of the Koran. (you see you assume the Bible is the universally accepted standard, then you beg the question with them too.)

U Said: And Christ promises that the Holy Spirit will lead you into the truth.

and it does and it will, for me it has. I claim no superiority over you in righteousness, indeed since I know more, I am responsible to do more, thus I may actually for knowing more and doing the same things be under greater condemnation, but as we both have been commanded by God to learn, I will continue to study, as I am sure will you.

I started counting topics in your large post and had the interruption of a funeral to go to, so I have taken a a long time to respond, however, I have refuted your every argument in your wide range of topics. your assertion that Argument by question is valid is hereby refuted as well. All you seem to do is throw spaghetti at the wall, hoping some will stick, none has, none will, you waste my time and anyones who bothers to read all this.

I am going to add this post to my links and whenever you post questions I have answered here, I will refer you, and any lurkers to this post, thus I will have answered most of the questions that can be thrown at the church, and you will be seen as a repetitive questioner who seeks to run people down because you can post large posts.

May the God Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob have mercy on you and teach you the ways that lead to him. When he does may you have the wisdom to follow the path he lays before you.

I Said: So according to your logic Every one who Died was disapproved of by God? Man is just not doing well at all, Even Jesus' own disciples all died (according to the Catholics anyway)

U Said: Putting words in my mouth DU, shame shame.

Asking a question cannot be putting words in your mouth, putting words in your mouth would be saying "you meant to say ..." or "What you are really saying ..." or even "When anti Mormons say that they mean ...", I merely asked if you meant to say something that if carried to it's logical conclusion would mean what I said (that's why there is a question mark at the end of the words). U Said: Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Yes, but how far after? Many Orthodox Christians on this forum maintain that this judgment happens immediately, Mormons hold because of 2 Tim. 4: 1, and Rev. 20: 12-13. We believe in vicarious works because of the Atonement (a vicarious work for us by Jesus), and 1 Pet. 4: 5-6 where Jesus preached to the dead before he was resurrected (that's why he hadn't returned to his father when he appeared to Mary and told her not to touch him...) This we believe, you always want to wander off and find some corner to get stuck in, and that's your right, get stuck all you want, it won't help you in the end.

I Said: Spalding's book is the one you guys always like to say Joseph copied, at least until the manuscript was found.

U Said: The work cited is Manuscript Story which is different from which is believed to have been used by Smith et al called Manuscript Found.

Actually, Manuscript Story and Manuscript found are the same book, just with an alternate title and a few changes. An RLDS site with links to several sources for the manuscript.

I Said: The Quran contains the story of Jonah, Joseph, Abraham, Noah, Mary (yes that Mary) and much else that is found in the Bible... So they are the same book according to you?

U Said: Difference is Mohammad didn’t plagerize the bible for the actual text.

Please tell us how you know that. The Koran contains some biblical stories verbatim, the Book of Mormon contains some passages verbatim, and even gives attribution to the source (Isaiah) And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words... If you attribute, it's not plagiarism.

U Said: You say Joseph Plagiarized the Book of Mormon, First off, I have said MS was not used, therefore any red herring here is only your strawman.

You seem to think that by saying you are saying Manuscript Found, not Manuscript Story, it makes a difference, it does not. They are the same story.

U Said: Detailed investigation into the literary dependency of the bom by H. Michael Marquardt found here:
http://irr.org/mit/literary-dependence-bom-1a.html

So using phases from the New Testament when translating an ancient record means it was written now? ROTFLOL! Why didn't he just complain that it was translated into English and that means it was written now!, LOL! I can't believe you take this rubbish seriously

Prophetic writings of Jesus in the Book of Mormon prove it false, while prophetic writings of Jesus in the Bible prove... it's inspired?

You guys are funny.

U Said: Additional input to Smith’s story came from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. Written by a Vermont minister in 1823 (with a second edition in 1825), this fictional story argued that the American Indians were descendants of the "lost tribes of Israel."

So what? I'm sure I can find pieces of any story in any other story, for one written in English they all use the word "the", so they all copied from each other.

Spalding – Rigdon interaction is covered here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#4 http://www.mormonstudies.com/fragment.htm U Said: And as I said – Manuscript story was not used, but substantial parallels exist (approx 75) and some of these parallels are set side by side - can be evaluated here:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/author3.htm

So it was no copied, but there are 75 parallels, LOL! Do you know how many books I can find with 75 similarities to the Bible?

Lets see, similarities

I've read them in English.
It's been translated into other languages.
There is lots of travel.
Fantastic things happen.
People have funny sounding names.
It's a collection of Stories.
the Stories have a moral.
The Story has a hero.
There are bad guys.
Good triumphs over Evil in the end.

Let's see, I picked those from the Bible, but If I restrict myself to Fiction, the Narnia Chronicles, Spiderwick, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, The Foundation trilogy, Dune An unfortunate series of events and Harry potter come to mind and that's just for starters. 75 similarities, your joking about that being your "proof" right? U Said: Chew through the above for a while then.

Chewed, it wasn't much to chew on, Anti sites never are, try some unbiased information Solomon Spalding, Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship

Now, FARMS has an article on this very topic Here

Once the standard critic's explanation of the Book of Mormon, the Spalding (or Spalding-Rigdon) theory has fallen on hard times. The first significant blow to this explanation came with the rediscovery in 1884 of an original Spalding manuscript known today as "Manuscript Story."[4] In 1833, Hurlbut borrowed the manuscript from Spalding's widow and entrusted it to Howe. In his book, Howe briefly described the document but, finding it did not support his theory, argued that the Book of Mormon was based upon a now lost second manuscript on ancient America. After 1834, "Manuscript Story" was either lost, misplaced, or knowingly suppressed. The recovery of this Spalding manuscript in 1884 and its subsequent publication did much to undermine confidence in the Spalding theory, even among critics, since the manuscript did not seem consistent with the statements published by Howe. Another blow to the theory came in 1945 when Fawn Brodie published her popular biography of Joseph Smith,[5] in which she rejected the Spalding theory and crafted an alternative theory similar to that advanced by Alexander Campbell in 1831. In Campbell's view, Joseph Smith stood alone as the author of a fictional Book of Mormon. Like Campbell, Brodie argued that the Book of Mormon was a product of Joseph Smith's imagination and creative ability and that common and popular ideas and sources would have supplied all that was necessary for him to create such a book. Subsequently, most critics of the Book of Mormon have followed some variant of Brodie's thesis. But in more recent years, as the Internet has opened up an additional venue for the dissemination of "information," the Spalding theory has made a modest comeback. Spalding advocates such as Dale Broadhurst have taken advantage of the Internet to provide a forum for similarly disposed critics of the Book of Mormon.[6]

Fawn Brodie, an noted anti Mormon has actually done the research and concluded that there is not enough support for the Spaulding plagiarism theory to be argued, yet you continue, LOL! Have fun looking silly.

I Said: I am cavalier about it because it does not matter to me. Joseph Smith never said the JST was finished, and it's not relevant to me.

U Said: In the History of the Church, under the date of February 2, 1833, we find this statement by Joseph Smith: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324).

In the Church Chronology, by Andrew Jenson, we find the following under the date of February 2, 1833: "Joseph Smith, jun., completed the translation of the New Testament." Under the date of July 2, 1833, this statement appears: "Joseph the Prophet finished the translation of the Bible." In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: "We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).

Mormon writer Arch S. Reynolds says that "the scriptures at that time were considered finished. This is proved by revelation from the Lord commanding the printing and publishing the same ... the Lord felt that the Bible contained his word and also was given in fullness" ("A Study of Joseph Smith's Bible Revision," typed copy, p.17).

See below also:

You just don’t want to believe your prophet DU - HE said the translation was finished.

He said the Translations of the New testament was finished, not the whole Bible, again point me to the complete test of the Bible that Joseph smith said was complete (you can't) We do have excerpts from what he did do included in our Bibles as foot notes and the sections that are too big are in an appendix JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION

We use what we have, and what we can get the rights to publish, what was your point? Oh yeah, you claim we don't use the JST, go to the link above, it's part of our published Standard works, that is what was finished, and what we could get the rights to publish. It's not an issue for me, as I said.

I Said: Yep, I claim he was working on it and what he did is very inspirational, but he never said he was done.

U Said: See above.

Yeah, he finished the new testament, but not the whole bible before he was martyred.

I Said: Where, got link? Also please link the text that was so approved by Joseph Smith.

U Said: See image above, in official Mormon church history, where the original letter was signed by smith.

And the link to the text? You kind of cut that off of your quote of my words, I'm sure it was an oversight.

I Said: Yes we do, it's a requirement of being the true church, continuing revelation.

U Said: Sure hasn’t been very functional

LOL! So you want us to publish more? I thought you didn't like what was published already!

I Said: Ask God, after all, who can you trust more about his work than God?

U Said: Not when the mouth piece is Smith.

I didn't say to ask Joseph Smith, I said ask God, and it's a good idea to ask God about Joseph smith after reading the Book of Mormon.

I Said: LOL! Simon Southerton the Guy who wrote a book saying the church wasn't true and got excommunicated? Then went crying tot he press as a pump up for his book? That guy, LOL!

U Said: Molecular Biologist – yep, he ought to know something about DNA and its testing. Of course the Legitimately church respond as usual - excommunication- probably for some trumped charge like adultery or the sort.

Actually being unrepentant and opposing the church publicly is enough. It's enough for the Catholics and probably any other church. He separated himself from God first, we just recognized that severance of that relationship.

DNA testing, I don't claim to be a geneticist, i am not aware that you do either, we are both quoting "experts", however, starting with a pure sample, that I can understand. Dilution of the sample, that I can understand, people in the Book of Mormon talking about their heritage and it being important to them that they were descended from Lehi, or Nephi, I can understand. That you get garbage out when you put Garbage in, that I can understand and that's what we are getting, DNA experts who argue with each other because they started with differing samples.

I Said: It's the only way he could make some $$$$ I guess.

U Said: Typical morg smear tactic.

Not a smear tactic, truth. I have three relatives who are professors at Colleges, they tell stories about the lengths professors will go to to get their publications "noticed". I did not state that I "knew" it's a guess based on the stories I have heard.

I Said: He still never addresses the fact that the DNA in the Book of Mormon as described is not going to test as "Jewish" or he's a quack. I prove that on my page Here

U Said: So you are a molecular biologist now?

U Said: Here is a summary of his answers to morg charges

http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html

He does not address any of my points here, he spends a lot of time on Mitochondrial DNA but does not address the "Genetically Promiscuous" and "impure sample" problems that are the Point of my section on Does DNA from Indians prove anything about the Book of Mormon? .

U Said: And in specific response to your so-called proof

1. Since according to the bom – all native Americans descended from Lamanites – who’s genotypes and dna signatures would be that of Semetic peoples (Eastern Mediterranean Caucasian). It would not matter HOW promiscuous they might have been, those genetic signatures would remain in the gene pool.

This is simply not true, You cannot get a reliable result from an impure sample.

U Said: 2. Pure genetic samples of the common ancestor group are not necessary – unless you are charting close decendency (as with courts today). Modern genetics look at markers across people groups and work with those markers. And between people groups the fingerprint of those markers change so that they are identifiable. Modern example are the group of Jews in Africa that recently proved their Jewish ancestory via DNA.

Genetic promiscuity and an impure sample absolutely preclude a reliable result.

The Jewish descended Africans were a genetically exclusive group, (refusing to marry outside the group), Thus they meet the criteria I am talking about, they started pure and kept themselves pure and the Jews they were descended from kept themselves pure (genetic purity here folks) the test worked wonderfully because of the "Cohen halpotype", the American Indians in recorded history were not genetically conservative, they were genetically promiscuous. The People in the Book of Mormon were also Genetically promiscuous, marrying in with several groups some of which out numbered them, thus we have no probability greater than pure chance that they will match Jewish DNA.

U Said: 3. Zoram and Ishmael – both came from semetic stock, would not matter.

Zoram was a slave, no ancestry is given in the Book of Mormon, how do you know he was Jewish?

Ishmael's ancestry is also not given in the Book of Mormon, however, on my page I stipulate that he was probably Jewish in ancestry.

U Said: 4. The American Indians were not a genetically conservative group, they would marry in vi kings and Spanish and Europeans, - this is evidenced by the 96.5% figure – post 1492 influence. Cross racial births do not obliterate all the markers. And that statistically, there is a 96.5 % match to Mongol-Asians is too great to try to wave away by promiscuity.

Markers dissipate into a group over time, if the Indians were pure when the Europeans got there you would still find markers, however, the Dispersion started in 600 B.C. and by now there is no way to obtain a result that means anything.

U Said: additional info regarding DNA and the bom here (for lurkers, DU probably won't go to read/listen)

Are you actually going to my page when linked? If so why did you argue what I had already stipulated (Ishmeal's ancestry)

Let's have some fun with your "links"

http://www.lhvm.org/dna_sci.htm

Living hope ministries, AKA an anti site, now there's a scientific, unbiased source for you.

with videos from "MormonChallenge.com" yeah, that's impartial stuff you got there, hey just for curiosity, has any of this stuff been peer reviewed? By people not opposed to the church I mean, you want that of our stuff, So have any Moslems or Buddhists agreed with this and where is that refence...

I love how one of the videos claims to know which seas were which (this could really be anywhere) LDS historians don't even say which were which because there are many places in the Americas which could have been the sites of the Book of Mormon.

LOL!

U Said: Morg smear campaign on Southerland here:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_simonsoutherton.html

Mormon curtain, another anti Mormon site, why can't you quote scientists from neutral sources? because, a scientist who was neutral would see that if the Book of Mormon is taken as a record, there is no way you will get a positive match so getting a negative means nothing.

Besides, Keith Crandall a non Legitimately Genetics decided to study this, joined and now teaches at BYU (when unbiased sources look at it they join and the pool of unbiased scientists keeps getting smaller.

I do note that Mr. Southerton claims he was excommunicated for Adultery, he has to be the source since the church cannot and will not comment on the excommunication thus he is admitting to adultery, or the inability to keep marital vows to his wife. As I asked with with Bill Clinton, Mr. Southerton, if your wife can't trust you how can I.

Instead of including your last paragraph which appeared to me to be more like an advertisement than a question or a point, I'll quote from Simon Southerton's available works. Quote can be found here

People can sense gross bias very quickly and I don’t think people will see it here. Most of us on RfM are very biased in our opinions. We might be right but we are very biased!

If you actually take the time to read Simon's work you will see a man who had already left the church before he wrote his book, he just didn't have the honor or dignity to let the Church know, he continued to attend specifically so he could say he was an active Mormon when he published his book.
You try to "make hay" quoting Simon Southerton because he is a Molecular Biologist Try looking for Keith Crandall, he started as a non member who specifically specializes in population Genetics, Joined the church after examining the question of Genetics and the Book of Mormon. Why would a Genetics who specializes in exactly this branch of genetics join the church after examining this evidence? Either He is for sale and has been paid, is a complete idiot, or he is convinced that it was true. Why would he be convinced? Well as part of his study of the Genetics of Indians and the comparison he was asked to make he read the Book of Mormon, actually read it looking for clues, and when he felt the Spirit of God testifying to him that it was true, well, he joined.

You like Videos? OK, here are some Videos:

DNA:
part 1 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
part 2 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
Part 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA

The Book of Mormon:
Hebraisms and The Book of Mormon

Jesus Christ in the New World (Book of Mormon)
pt1Evidences of the Book of Mormon Daniel C Peterson lecture
Nahom in The Book of Mormon
Nephis Bountiful in Arabia: The Book of Mormon
Book of Mormon, being confirmed? <------ This one in particular shows the problems the Antis face, a shrinking pool of things to say are wrong with the Book of Mormon

Book of Abraham:
part 1 Authentic ancient names in the book of Abraham
part 2 Authentic ancient names in the book of Abraham

Your position often seems to be that I am an idiot because I am a Mormon. Well, I do have my moments of stupidity, I think we all do. But if you actually watch my videos, as you challenged me to watch yours, and I did. I think you will see that there is much to support what I believe. I also believe while you can find much archaeological evidence for the Bible, you will never prove it "True" in the sense that you will never find archaeological evidence for say the atonement or archaeological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Just because you cannot archaeologically prove something true does not make it false. God designed this world, it works the way he wants it to. Why can't we find incontrovertible proof of Jesus' divinity? Because God wants men to act by faith, it's the same with the Book of Mormon, you will never prove it true or false with Archeology. God wants men to ask him, That's all Mormons want men to do is follow the Bible's teachings and Put our religion to "The Test". For any who want to find out what this test is, just Click on this link.

Godzila, I think it is clear to state that you are biased against the LDS church.

I also think it is clear that you are not inclined to an impartial, debate on the subject.

I think anyone who cares to read your posts will come to these conclusions as well.

I am comfortable with a similar analysis of my position, I don't call people names, like Fluffy, joey, I don't abbreviate names of important people (Jo for Joseph Smith) or invent disrespectful names like a "morg". While I understand you may think these are funny and your "posse" may even give you virtual high fives, I am convinced that they detract from your message and that lurkers find such antics repugnant. In short, I encourage you to continue your vitriolic method of dissent from us, while I also encourage you to write smaller posts so more lurkers will have the desire to read them.

Godzilla, I sincerely wish you well, and I hope that one day you will come to the realization that you are in opposition to God's will, he never commanded anyone to attack his church. Go with God, allow him to guide you into peace and unto him.

I apologize to any who were inconvenienced by my delay in responding, I literally had funerals to go to.

I don't abbreviate names of important people (Jo for Joseph Smith)

Why, that guy isn't important!

I mean, if every polygamist pedophile false-prophet charlatan were to be considered important...

Chaos would reign!

I Said: I don't abbreviate names of important people (Jo for Joseph Smith)

U Said: Why, that guy isn't important!

Of course he is to Mormons, it's like calling John the Baptist Johnny B, or Calvin Cal, or Jesus Christ JC... I for one hate it when people spell it X-Mas what, you're too cheap to pay for the ink to spell Christmas?

People with class don't belittle people who are important to other people's religion. That kind of behavior reflects more on the name caller than on the name callee.

U Said: I mean, if every polygamist pedophile false-prophet charlatan were to be considered important...

One out of four (polygamist) with a batting average like that you wouldn't even be in the minors.

U Said: Chaos would reign!

We have McCain for a republican presidential candidate, it already does.

I am just hoping The second coming will happen before either McCain or Obama gets in office.