Why so many LDS threads?

You go on and on about DNA, I added a whole new section to my page, just about DNA, here is the link, Does DNA from Indians prove anything about the Book of Mormon?

Go and read, hopefully you'll see why none of your flawed studies faze anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon, we see it's flaws.

Which translation is the following found?

Who cares? 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)

I Said: Taxes are not a concern for him at that point, he's concentrating on doing Jesus' work.
B U Said: GROAN!

Taxes are EVERYONE's 'concern' as long as they still are breathing!

That was the point, when they finally start living in the church office building, they are not long for this world, so no tax worries, the IRS is still working on making the dead file...

U Said: What VALUE does the GOVERNMENT put upon this Church Supplied Living Quarters??

You may be the only person who cares, since they are only putting him there so he can still work, do you have to report a company car as income if you have to have it for work? What about all those police cars parked at the residence of police officers?

I think you are fishing for another zero to put in front of any number.

I Said: I believe Godzilla is antiquated, his views are steeped in tradition, and his methods do not take into account new findings, or modern methodology...

U Said: (Oh, you mean "antiquated" notions like DelphiUser's defense of ancient practices instigated & rooted in the person of Lamech, the initial polygamist who was a violent Cainite?

Don't you mean Lamech son of Methuselah and father of Noah (yeah that Methuselah, and that Noah) you can't say he didn't have a good up brining, and you can't say he raised nothing but evil kids, they only mention his wives because he told them what he had done (which it turns out was dumb). There is no way to know if there were other "polygamists", since it simply is never the story, but a footnote in the story, and it is interesting to note that we don't even know if he was the first, and that it probably happened while Adam was alive. It's also interesting to note that all of Adam's children committed incest, or that would have been the end of mankind.

U Said: You mean DelphiUser's defense of ancient pagan customs like polygamy largely passed down thru the pagan custom of ancient Mesopotamia?)

You mean Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David (people I keep quoting) were all priests of Mesopotamia? No? then that's not what I was saying, but you do get the most obtuse interpretation of the day award.

U Said: You don't mean to say that DelphiUser never could shed the skin of polygamous traditions of which scatter across his heritage, do you?

Actually, if you follow my ancestry back to the time of Joseph (may parents being converts from Methodism, we go back to Governor Boggs, who while he figures in Mormon history, is not a polygamist, he is the one who signed the extermination order in Missouri (IE your stereotype is sadly off of the mark)

U Said: Do you mean to say his method of reading history backwards, from front to back, revisionist style, sought to impose "new findings" on the institution of marriage?

Funny, When I read the Bible (which I do at least once every four years) I start at Genesis, where do you start? As for "new findings" it's not my fault they are new to you, you should read the Good book more, it'll do you good.

U Said: All when the Old Testament made it quite clear that the Israelites viewed monogamy as the most acceptable form of marriage -- stated openly in Deut. 17:17 & Gen. 2:24 + implied by Hebrew laws in Ex. 20:17; 21:5; Lev. 18:8,16-20; 20:10; Num. 5:12; Deut. 5:21???...

Of course monogamy was the most common form of marriage, even in the early Mormon church, less than 1% ever practiced polygamy. That fact does not fit your template though, does it...

U Said: and a practice, BTW, that New Testament Christians practiced as "THE" standard: 1 Tim. 3:2,12; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Cor. 7:2; Matt. 19; Gen. 2:23-25; Deut. 17:17; Lev. 18:18???

Yes, Monogamy is the norm both in the church in Jesus' time and in the Church in Joseph's time.

U Said: Why would he embrace an institution that was never New Testament Christianity if he was a true-blue restorationist?

because it was indeed biblical and in the new testament, and I'm not even going to go to a Mormon site, see the article called Polygamy Commanded of God in NT? on the Site biblicalpolygamy.com

There are tons of your fellow Orthodox Christians you need to convince before you can present the "unified" face you are claiming here that reality simply didn't happen the way that it did. Delude yourself all you want, but you won't delude me.

As to the early Christian church, have you hard of Justin marytr?

And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this.

Augustine?

Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it

Early Christians on plural marriage.

It's simple, the early church accepted polygamy as "not a sin", the NT accepted polygamy as "not a sin" the Old testament accepted Polygamy as "not a sin" but sure, you could sin while doing it. You can also sin while not married. God is not a changeable God, God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, the proposition that polygamy was "A - OK" in the old testament and then a sin in the new is just silly and destroys God as a being who respects times and seasons.

Why do I support the position I do? simple, it's the only logical position that does not contradict any facts.

U Said: I guess that's what happens when you're "steeped in religious tradition."

Again, you are so wide of the mark, it's funny, my parents were converts, all my extended family until you get very far away are not Mormons, then I have a distant uncle Bruce R McConkie, and a distant Ancestor, Governor Lilburn Boggs.

Hardly a recipe for being Steeped in tradition, indeed, I had my choice between Methodism and Mormonism growing up, thankfully, I put the Bible and Book of Mormon too good use and got an answer from God.

The traditions of men? That would be the trinity, a doctrine created by a pagan emperor to allow him to pacify a newly reunited Roman Empire with this fledgling church, Christianity, thus was born a doctrine with enough Greek mysticism that it was accept able to them, enough Christianity that it was acceptable to the Christians and vague enough that no one could argue with this mystery of mysteries being promulgated by this newly formed Roman Catholic Church. All the sources for all this are On my page at Free Republic.

You came out swinging and missed every punch, you assumed that because I live in Utah now that I was raised here, you assumed that I was a generational Mormon, when I am not and you are assuming that what you have been taught is true without ever thinking to ask God. Do yourself a favor, ask him, I'll wait....

I have never launched a personal attack on your character,

Speaking in absolutes - DU, these posts (besides this one) documents your attempts to smear me. Ask Tennessee Nana if that wasn’t your intent, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1325#1325

And here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1329#1329

I have pointed out that you at one point claimed to be a paid minister (you said you were a minister), and when asked how much you make all I got were smart-alic answerers, that followed by your focus on Farms being a "paid ministry" well if you can't see the connection, you're blind.

Where oh where did I ever say (or claimed) that I was a paid minister? I went into the way-back machine and pulled out your first accusation to that effect. I never claimed to be a paid minister. That was made very clear (for all but the blinded) here

I wouldn’t know since I don’t get paid to do this.
1,019 posted on May 10, 2008 3:51:10
PM PDT by Godzilla (I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1019#1019

But you didn’t want to believe that so you continued on and on and on. That’s two strikes against you DU – failing to accept my profile or any of my denials that I was a paid, professional theologian. Of course with that knowledge you committed you own lie of omission.

If you truly believed that reading and praying about the Book of Mormon would net people an answer from God you should be all for it. You have not taken that position, therefore it appears that you do not believe people will get a negative answer in spite of your assertions to the contrary.

I settled the issue in my personal life regarding the bom a long, long time ago. I have laid out the scriptural response to evaluating these other gospels and so-called prophets. I further repudiate accepting the bom on its terms. As such, simply reading and praying about the bom – in the vacuum of investigating the work CONTRARY to the example set by the Bereans – is exactly what the Lord and the Apostles warned against. Nowhere does the Bible ever direct the believing Christian to take any religious book and pray about the truthfulness of its contents.

Actually, the only reason I care is that some anti's like yourself post huge posts that are all over the map and when no one can succinctly refute you, you claim to be proven "right". When in reality you are proven to be verbose and unorganized, not "right".

LOL, DU you are projecting again. Most instances I have let you serve first. My responses to you are long because yours are long to begin with.

For several threads you have been saying you are a Theologian, you have complained that I am not, questioned my attendance at seminary and said that it was not the same thing real theologians go through. When asked you said you were a minister, knowing that that would imply for a job, you get "cagey" when asked about it and refuse to answer, this is known as a lie of omission.

Several thread??? Where, provide the citation……waiting…..I see that later in your post you’ve found how to look back at the past posts……still waiting. Nope, didn’t question your attendance at seminary, only applied the correct contextual setting for the reference. Again, you lack citation….., your protestations are growing increasing weak and wimpy. Since you believed my profile to be a lie, you believe what you want. What we will see on your part is a lie of commission.

You have lied to me by omission, I have directly asked if you are indeed a paid minister and you have refused to supply or even correct the record, thus you are guilty of precisely the definition of lying by omission. You really don’t know what was said. First you claim I didn’t say it, now you say I said it and call it an omission? You sound very confused – get too much sun this weekend?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1329#1329 To which I got no reply, you should add, thus the lying by omission.

Why should you receive another answer, since I answered it 310 posts previously! See immediately above if you still have not figured it out. How can I lie by omission when I answered you 310 posts earlier?

Is there any truth in you at all Godzilla?

Given your ill fated smear attack, the truth has been laid out for you all along, you just didn’t want to accept it.

Get you to tell the truth? Check your page?

Which, for the lurkers and FRiends, describes me, having been in place loooooong before I began to engage mormons here in the Religion side of the house. Furthermore, my posting to the religion side only began in late 2007 IIRC. I’ve been on FR since May 2003 – where has this so called paid theologian been during that period. Another strike against your logic and baseless accusations, DU that you failed to review my background further – which BTW is available to all Freepers.

Yeah, so your page does not say you are a paid minister, you have left stuff out before.

That would be easy enough to prove…….but you have not offered any links to where I have left stuff out before. And why not, because you cannot prove it.

Ah yes, post # 1019, I notice you don't post a link...

A linkage was provided – just not via html coding, the unlinked information was right there. Anyone with simple skills could copy the reference and past it into the address box and go right to it.

Well, I did, I was coming down on you hard fro being a hypocrite, for some time you had been allowing yourself to be said to be a paid theologian (your words, I would have said minister), and now after refusing to answer directly, ….

Ah, now just what is it DU? Are you accusing me of telling everyone I was a paid theologian or because you believed otherwise? Please make up your mind. And since you said it it was my words – where are they? As has already been shown, both this thread as well as my previous posts, I have allowed you to say this, even though I told you I am not paid to do this. The fact that you so ignorantly assumed my profile was a lie made you assertions even more laughable.

For any one who is interested, here is what Godzilla Edited out "(the Bible was not peer reviewed... a peer review does not make something true, ask the flat earth society, they have peers who review their stuff)."

The bible does not make the claims that the bom does. Peer review is a scientific arena, the so-called scientists who post on Maxwell (FARMS), FAIR and other echo chamber sites do not have their articles reviewed outside of mormonism. Thus the comparison between the bible and peer reviewed scientific documents is stupid and not worth responding to. Same comparison goes to the Flat Earthers – any peer review falls within their group. Outsiders are not sought out as with regular scientific periodicals to review and challenge the article for truthful and factual presentation of the data. Thus the Flat Earthers are like the mormons – only peer review within their own echo chambers.

I am still after something no man can provide, and all the editing in the world will no change the fact that you keep asking for man's standards, Peer review, Doctorates, and councils, I keep calling for men to call upon God. I am content to let our record of posts available to anyone here Godzilla's posts, and Delphiuser's posts stand as my witness, that i am calling people to pray and at this point in time Godzilla is not.

And you will still be after it as long as you look to Joseph Smith to provide it. I am calling people to follow the example of the Bereans – something you seem to be unable to refute.

Where?

Keep reading DU, you make unwarranted assumptions.

You said you were a minister and never denied being paid while seeming to confirm it without actually doing so, See Lie of Omission.

DU is unable to provide citation where I said I was a minister, so it is a lie of commission on DUs part – see post #1019

More weasel words, refusing to give a clear answer to clear questions, well done Godzilla, you have succeeded in not telling the truth yet again in a "Plausibly deniable way".

Again, this was answered at post #1019 as well as earlier. My how testy DU gets when cornered by is own foolishness.

Godzilla, understand that I do not say that you are lying lightly, you have admitted in this post that you allowed this belief of mine to continue for "Many Months" you admit that you knew i held this opinion, you admit that you encouraged this opinion by refusing to deny it when asked plainly for months, and only when I began to use it against you on a thread where you were attacking others as being paid do you admit your perfidy, still worse you do it in a way calculated to say that I am some how a liar because you have deceived me, or that I cannot have received a revelation from God about the Book of Mormon because you were able to lie to me.

You were given your answer January 21, 2008, I repeated my answer nearly verbatim in this thread. Secondly, I could not believe you would be so blind to the evidence that you would go off the deep end. Finally, you have not asked me for months and months, only now, when you think you can wield this as a weapon do you bring it out. You are so confused.

DU Said -Some of us are to paid to come on this forum and bash. I believe you stated earlier that you are a professional theologian, I am not, I have a day job.

Note, DU is unable (nor would he be able) to provide the earlier statement where I said I was a professional theologian (don’t hold your breath). He can in his reply but ……(crickets). And once again my response was:

I never said I was a professional theologian, but if it makes you feel better to think that, then be my guest. BTW, where’s my paycheck then.

What part of this could not be understood? As can be seen following the thread back I never said I was a professional theologian and I confirmed it again. Secondly, how could anyone miss the sarcasm of the paycheck comment? So here is a FR saavy poster whom I thought would access my profile and see what I do for a living. DU apparently claims that he did – but did not believe what was there and has since called what was posted there a lie. For history see below:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=458#458

No DU whines that I allowed him to continue on in his self-induced deception even though the facts were already established:

1. I never said prior to post #458 in that thread that I was a paid theologian, nor professional theologian, nor theologian of any kind. With all of DU’s protestations, he is unable to make the claim stick.
2. I had a profile posted for all to see since 2003, with only slight modifications and additions through 2008. None of those modification removed any reference that said I was a paid professional theologian.
3. I responded to his questions that I was not paid for what I do nor that I was a professional theologian on this thread. The fact that I said so early on and only once – in comparisons to DUs numerous demands, even after my replies – would have been wasteful. I only needed to say it once, not dozens of times, and had already told him much earlier.

Even now DU continues in his self induced deception.

The truth is always the best response, and not a belated "Many Months" later truth, but when it was first asked. Jesus would expect no less of you.

The truth was given to you in January 2008 both directly and indirectly. You refused to accept it.

Yeah yeah yeah, I already linked to your page twice. It does not say you are not paid to preach, it merely says other things you do, besides, when did you edit your page last? (pardon us if we are skeptical, you have already lied by omission, commission is not much farther down the road.)

What, should it say that I am paid to preach, because I am not. Not too hard of a concept for one to grasp – unless like you have been doing and that is grasping at straws. And DU’s only resort is to accuse me of posting false stuff about myself in my profile. Tsk, tsk.

Ah, "Many Months" late and few dollars short, but this I trust is the truth at last?

It has been there since January 2008, you just refused to believe it. Of course, for you to be caught in this kind of foolish personal attack / vendetta when the truth has been there for so long kinda shows your motives for pursing this.

As to "countering the False translations..." then you go to threads where Momrons are posting translations that are incorrect about other churches, or perhaps where we (Momrons) go and post incorrect translations of the Bible?

Here is an instance of selective quoting by DU. The countering the False translations…. was in this context from my post:

Further scandalous and false translations of the Book of Breathing and the fraudulent Kinderhook plates show that Smith was not an inspired translator.

It was not in reference, as DU is trying to force, to biblical translations – which those inclined can go and review the MS. The MS for the boa IS the book of breathing papyrus and it shows the translation to be FRAUDALENT. The same goes for the Kinderhook plates. When I do reference a translation – it is the Joseph Smith Inspired Translation (JST or IV) of the KJV.

No? Try telling the truth, you go onto threads that Mormons will be mentioned on, and say uncomplimentary things about them and their founders, and their religion to try to start a fight. Go on, admit it, you'll feel better stating the obvious truth.

I present the truth concerning those items based upon a biblical foundation, documented history of Smith and mormonism, teachings and not the honey to the ears by the acknowledged mormon leadership at the time, critical evaluation of any physical and historical truth to what is said to be recorded in the bom, and evaluation of Smith from documented historical references. They may sound uncomplimentary to you because you have been conditioned to accept them in their white washed form – separated from the real truth, even out of their very own mouths or pens.

I see that you have stopped saying no evidence (since I keep presenting this nonexistent evidence and it gets embarrassing for you, now it's valid evidence. Well, the Atheists find no valid evidence for God, so I guess it's up to what is "valid evidence" now isn't it.

Don’t put words in my mouth DU, you know better. As I have shown over and over again – there is a difference in evidence and true evidence. I didn’t bother to restate the standards again for you. The so-called evidence you have put forth has been turned down as such by the mormon GA themselves (haven’t seen the living prophet or seer stating that the Los Lunas rock is a mormon artifact lately), or even legitimate mormon investigators, has the preponderance of evidence indicating that it is a bom artifact – over all the other indicators (such as your Bat Creek Stone), isn’t fabricated like the alleged Indian writings (soundly disproven by experts in that very language), and the others you trot out. OTOH, ethinic, DNA, and archaeological evidence point to the fact that the Native Americans are not derived from Jewish ancestors as well as no other big developments. The Smithsonian Inst. still has not seen anything that THEY would consider positive evidence that the bom is true. On the contrary, there is plenty of contrary evidence.

Yet, I don't find you actually encouraging people to study the Book of Mormon, ….

Same ol, same ol. How did the Bereans evaluate the new teachings? Compare it to the standard of the Bible.

That was just sad. It does not even meet with the Test put forth by John in First John 4:1-3

I am not testing a spirit here DU, but a writing alleged by its author(s) to be superior to the bible and a religion that claims to be superior to Christianity. But lets put this to rest once and for all. Does 1 John 4 saying that one should pray concerning the Book of Mormon (or any other religions writing?). To assume such an interpretation is to ignore the Greek language used by the Apostle John. The word "try" in this verse is the word dokimazw (dokimazo) which means to to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals. Where is prayer in this definition? It is not there. When it comes to making a decision of whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God, we are to test what it has to say. If it contradicts what God has already revealed, it fails. The real Holy Spirit will not contradict the Words of the True God. That is the example of the Bereans. When tested, examined, proved and scrutinized against the bible, the bom turns out to be exactly what the Apostle Paul warned of in Galatians 1:8-9, KJV:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

It makes perfect sense that the father of lies would employ a false testing standard in order to seduce a person into believing a lie. So in addition to addressing a VERY specific context – Gnosticism - John never said to just pray about it. When following the biblical example of the Bereans, the bom doe not even get out of the gate.

….. Moroni 10:4, …..

This is the first time I have noticed DU use this as a justification. Moroni is a breakdown in the logical process – the document in question tells one to pray about its validity. It is no more valid than this :

"And I promise thee that if ye ask if this book be not true, and roll a pair of dice with a sincere heart, and desire exceedingly for the book to be true, yea, the dice shall reveal the truthfulness of this book unto thee."
- Melph 5:4

Except Melph is more readable and reliable.

How perceptive of me, i must have finally found the posts where you admit to not being paid after spending all that time alluding to being paid.

Ah, MOTS, DU drops the section where he accuses me of making up my profile as a lie, which I was responding to, trying to strengthen his point – but fails..

You Said: Ladies and gentlemen of FR who may be reading this post – and especially you DU as you have served a worthwhile object lesson in mormonism.
And you a worthwhile lesson in what an anti will do to "make his point" (lie).

Just like with mormonism, DU chooses to believe lies he has worked up contrary to fact for what ever personal reasons he may have. And in the face of proof and truth to the contrary, holds on to it.

I check profiles as a matter of course, you find some neat stuff that way... You also see how long someone has been a FReeper, I believe I looked at your page quite a while ago, but honestly, it was not that memorable so I could not prove it.

Wow, here is the third time DU has confessed reading my profile. Certainly when you first checked it in Jan 2008 – you would have seen pretty much what is there today – plus and minus some pictures. Since you were so adamant about my being a paid theologian, its absence should have registered. Face it DU, you’ve talked yourself into a corner, it wasn’t there then and never has been either. Now kindly apologize for insinuating that my profile is a lie and deceitful since you admit that you cannot prove otherwise.

I believe the beginning of our little misunderstanding is Post 360 wherein the following is exchanged:
U Said: High sounding, but deceptive. Your ‘seminary’ training, if compatible with other Mormons, consisted of a theology classes taken during your high school years (hence 4 year). My equivalent experience – 30+ years.

This is where I can hardly stay in my chair, I’m laughing so hard. Oh now it is OUR misunderstanding! Even in post 360 you were accusing me of being paid – didn’t see it until I went back:

I do not fear your 30+ years, or your paid ministry,Post 360

I had completely missed that little paid ministry thing. So lets go further back and see if I said or insinuated any thing to allow you to draw that conclusion. I didn’t say anything about it in my post prior to this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=307#307

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=301#301

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/reply?c=285

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=250#250

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=234#234

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=221#221

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=209#209

Nor was anything said that REMOTELY resembles what DU claims in any of these posts. No reference to me being saying that I was a paid professional theologian. The only place you got that was from yourself (btw – my profile was in place before then too – so you could have checked then too).

Time to face the music DU, as you said earlier:

I believe the beginning of our little misunderstanding is Post 360 wherein the following is exchanged:

The misunderstanding was on YOUR part. No reasonable person following the above thread could come to the conclusion after reading my statements and my profile and come to the conclusion you did. Where in this exchange did I say I was a professional theologian? Or a paid anything? .

…. but pales in comparison to revelation from God. If you know so much, why am I handily wining this debate? I am making you look foolish, because You make unsubstantiated assertions and I prove them wrong, you tell me what I believe, and I prove that wrong too. This is funny.

Unsubstantiated assertions? That is what you have been doing for 9 pages now regarding me in spite of the fact that you cannot substantiate your claim from post 1. That is handily losing the debate, not winning.

I believed your lie...

You believed what you wanted to believe. You were told from the early on that I was not a theologian, I was not paid to post here and my profile confirmed the same. The record is there above for all to see. You believe a lie that you fabricated about me.

You did not clarify until may what you knew I had misunderstood, and you had encouraged that misunderstanding back in January.

You were told in January and any reasonable person could take my statements and my profile and come to that conclusion. The fact that I told you that if you wanted to believe that if you wanted to made no difference to me, I figured you were smart enough of an individual that you would be able to see from my profile and my answers to you that you were going down a bunny trail. I was trying to give you room to see the error of your thought processes rather than showing how stupid of an assumption you made. However, instead of recognizing your error, you resort to personal attacks. Unfortunately for you, you were caught in your own trap as the posting history doesn’t support you.

I really hate to disappoint you, but my Mom and Dad were raised Methodist...

You are not the only mormon or inquirer that I was writing this to.

Actually, My family was disowned fro years from my maternal grandmother's side of the family for joining...

Again, it was not to you alone I was writing those words to.

First, it's paid theologian, second, I could care less if you are paid or not, you are deluded for thinking that. Your page does not preclude being a paid theologian, many people moonlight, and you certainly hinted at tit and I did not want to call you a liar.

DU, DU, DU, I am the one deluded??? And now I am a part-time paid theologian? You need to print programs so I can follow who or what I am supposed to be today. But the posting history is all there. If you didn’t care, you’ve wasted a lot of time trying to defame me for that. And as for you calling me a liar:

“Been there, seen that." I went right after you said you were a minister on another thread, I thought it was interesting that you didn't mention that, even though it seems to be a big part of your public persona here. That said, personal pages can contain almost anything, and can be changed at any time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1462#1462

If that isn’t calling me a liar, nothing is (even after my NON saying I was a minister – see the thread above)

Your postings make clear that you encouraged and even fed a misunderstanding, making you a Liar by omission.

Why should I ruin your fantasy? After making it clear that wasn’t the case you persisted. More likely you are incredibly embarrassed by the fact that you jumped to so many assumptions quicker than a circus dog.

Believing a biblically sound direct revelation from God foolish?

The bom and mormonism are not biblically sound.

Yeah, you have put stuff up (attacked us) and been shot down, you put something else up, and it's proven a forgery, it's the same story, I have been seeing it since high school, see my Post 360 on our prior thread

Oh my, forgery – you mean like the boa?

4,000 Changes, see Why Were 4,000 Changes Made in The Book of Mormon?

For a document given word by word from the seer stone, as testified by the three witnesses and scribe for Smith. Even the most recent (1981) edition of the Book of Mormon, edited by a committee headed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve, included about 150 significant word changes. If that is the case, the mormon god has a very poor grasp on King James English. And this is from the most correct book on earth. Or from mormon sources:

‘These plates have been revealed by the power of God, andthey 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).

Wow, so the power of God doesn’t mean that much to you or that the translation is correct (except of course for 4000+ changes over the years)

Care to explain The Johannine Comma now?

I (and others) have explained that, it has been understood for years and why? Because older, more texturally reliable copies of the text have been found and correct. Most modern translations including KJV, do not include it or have a foot note indicating that it is not present in more reliable MS. Where are your mormon MS to justify the following?

The 1830 text of 1 Nephi 20:1 read, "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel; yet they swear not in truth, nor righteousness." Ten years later, in the 1840 edition, Joseph added the ordinance of water baptism to the text, "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness."

So where is the manuscript support for that little change? This is not a punctuation, spelling or other lame excuse.

I have repeatedly asked for one Active Mormon archeologist who says this, or proof that any archeologist was ever excommunicated for saying this,

Below is one active archaeologist still pending the outcome of his church trials. I also expanded the list to include related subject areas as they may not be ‘archaeologists’ they have the scientific standing to reflect upon that topic.
Thomas Murphy – archaeologist, threatened in 2002 – still pending
Egyptologist Ed Ashment
D. Michael Quinn – historian
David Wright, a professor of Hebrew studies
Simon Southerton is an Australian molecular biologist
Anthropologist David Knowlton

Knowing that it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative, I challenge you to prove the positive, and if you are thinking the Spaulding manuscript forget it, I have read what i could stand of it, not even close, next?

Whats the matter DU, evidence is evidence isn’t it, all the same, isn’t it, and 75 unusual parallels between story and the bom alone is striking – positive evidence. And there are others, but for another time.

U Said: - Joseph Smith’s inclusion of the Johannian Comma in the JST (aka Inspired Version) translation of the bible.
So the inerrant bibles errors prove the BOM is errant? Huh?

: No, only that your inspired wasn’t all that inspired after all. If his inspirations directly from God allowed this to go through, how inspiried was he when he (and others) wrote the bom? Nice of you to acknowledge the lack of inspiration in your prophet. BTW, translations are not inerrant.

Joseph never translated the book of breathings, but a scroll with red on it that accompanied it (that scroll is believed destroyed in the Chicago fire).

Lessee, in his narrative regarding the translation, he mentions Facsimile 1 and states that it is at the start of the scroll he translated. He has further commentary that facsimile 3 was at the end of the scroll he translated the boa from. Those descriptions alone identify the book of breathings as the scroll used. Add to it Smiths use of the hieroglyphics in his Egyptian – English translation document – in the same sequence as found on the scroll as well as his use of same text section to replace the portions damaged/missing on Facsimile 2. It took Nibley how many years to come up with this excuse? Why didn’t the living prophet and seer of the church at that time translate the materials and settle the matter? Sorry, the overwhelming evidence – from Smiths notes to the scroll itself – are all against you.

As for the kinderhook plates, Joseph never even tried to translate them, and ignored them altogether we do have several articles saying the translation would soon be coming, but that was obviously speculation by editors, Joseph never promised such nor delivered such a translation, he ignored the Kinderhook plates.

Joseph Smith was very clear about how far he translated them to publish the following:

I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

He sure said a lot about what was written on the plates for one never even tried to translated them and ignored them. He had facsimiles made of them and published in Times and Seasons and the History of the Church. Based upon that translation Smith identified the skeleton they were supposedly found with. Thus Smith struck out twice. The only thing genuine is that Smith was a genuine fake prophet.

You mean differing accounts which emphasized different aspects to different audiences, but never contradicted each other? LOL you sir are no story teller!

Objective reading of the different accounts do not indicate that different audiences were the reason for the differences, nor the other circumstances

Yep, he had disagreements, yep some people left the church yes some of them said terrible things many came back and apologized saying they were wrong (their stories live on however without the honor of being reported as recanted).

All joined hands and sang kum by ya too huh? Smith is on record apologizing for ever been associated with them. Hardly a resounding endorsement.

GREAT! Don't trust Joseph, trust God, ask him who you can trust and go with that!

Joseph claimed to speak for God (or God through him). If Smith is not trustworthy in these aspects, any thus saith the Lord stuff from him is immediately qualified as suspect. Thus we do as the Bereans did – test the word against the bible – therein is God’s word, and when that is done, it is clear it isn’t God speaking through Smith nor through the bom.

I am not trying to "prove the Book of Mormon true", if I did then there would be no room for faith, but as you request, http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_loslunas.html

Baaswwwwwhhwhhhwhwhwhhaahahha. Can’t prove a positive? Faith is all you have spouted. For all to see, the website even disagrees with DU assessment:

The Mormon Church did send an investigating team to the Stone and their conclusions were: 1) The stone did not have any Mormon signatures and 2) The stone was not authenticated for the age pre-Columbian historians are proposing for the stone……..

The Commandment Stone script comes from more than one port of call in the Old World. It is predominantly Phoenician and Archaic Greek, with one letter being Iberic.
(http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_williamson.html)

Too bad your authority who maintains the site doesn’t agree with you about your evidence but actually contradicts it. BTW Prof Murphy (under threat of excommunication) said the following about all this:

Community College professor of anthropology Thomas Murphy, who was also threatened with excommunication in 2002 stated: “The Book of Mormon is entirely inconsistent with the archaeology, the DNA, actually with all the evidence we have from the ancient Americas.”

No wonder they are trying to excommunicate him – a mormon who speaks the truth.

Oh that you were actually speaking the word of truth, but you testify and do not mention Jesus, you lie to set a trap for people, you encorage men to judge by their own understanding and you do not encourage them to pray to God.

No, I present the truth, not like the lie above about Los Lunas (even though debunked time and again – by your very own source). Further it is a falsehood on your part to accuse me of encouraging men to judge the bom without prayer. You are only upset that I stand by the biblically based method of testing the bom – the example of the Bereans, how accepted Paul’s testimony about Jesus.

I have performed exactly this Test on the Book of Mormon and God gave me a testimony of the Book of Mormon, and at the same time he gave me a testimony of Jesus as my personal savior. What a wonderful fulfillment of First John 4:1-3.

More likely a terrible deception. The bible warns us that the heart of man is desperately wicked and cannot be trusted (Jeremiah 17:9). Because we are sinful creatures, we can be swayed by our emotions and sinful desires. To believe something is true merely because we feel it to be so is no guarantee of truth. Therefore, such a test would never be condoned 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." Clearly, God's Word demonstrates that feelings can be deceptive. Because of this, the sincere truth seeker must base his decisions using more objective means in addition to prayer. Is it proper to pray whether or not it is permissible to commit murder? Adultery? Theft? "Of course not," they might answer. "Why?" you ask. "Because the Bible already speaks out against such sins." God has already given us His revealed will regarding such matters, and therefore no amount of prayer is going to change that fact. What difference is it to pray concerning the Book of Mormon if the Bible has already spoken out against it? Do you think the all-knowing God of the Bible is so inept and forgetful that He would approve a book and religion which is diametrically opposed to what He has already revealed? Never! In violating the rules of sacred writ, The Book of Mormon, and Mormonism as a whole, meets the criteria of being another gospel.. No amount of semantics or prayer will change the matter. (condensed from: http://www.afcministry.com/Pray_about_the_Book_of_Mormon.htm)

: That's OK, picture of Dog an all, I don't claim to be a "skillful" representative just a truthful one and when it comes down to it, would my fellow conservatives rather have a truthful if not so polished gospel or a skillfully and slickly delivered lie? I've seen slick and I don't want to emulate his "skill" as you seem to want to do.

Projecting again, remember Fluffy was a response to how you could destroy all religions other than mormonism. Yes, you are not as polished or slick as Smith in delivering a lie.

Men and bretherin, if you have read this far, I commend you for your intestinal fortitude

Yes, it must have been very difficult struggling through DUs contorted comments.

DU,

Change my perception of you, and your character.

Admit you are wrong - in less than 37 paragraphs.

You go on and on about DNA, I added a whole new section to my page, just about DNA, here is the link, Does DNA from Indians prove anything about the Book of Mormon? Go and read, hopefully you'll see why none of your flawed studies faze anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon, we see it's flaws.

Right, HEY EVERYBODY, the bom tells all about dna testing.

Great article here:

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20366/book-of-mormon-changes

The change is in the second paragraph of the introduction to the 2006 Book of Mormon, the most recent printing of the book published by Doubleday. The last sentence of that paragraph, which discusses the fate of ancient civilizations, stated in previous editions that the Lamanites, a nation of people that originated in Jerusalem, “are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

The newest edition states the Lamanites are “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”........

Charles Barfoot, a professor of religious studies at ASU, said the church is responding to cultural changes as the debate between science and religion escalates.

“The new wording basically is a concession to science, in some ways,” Barfoot said. “It’s like DNA research is contradicting the spiritual claim.”

Barfoot said the Mormon tenets allow for wiggle room. He categorized the faith as a “progressive revelation,” allowing for tweaks and changes.

“They have a way out to handle this,” he said of the church. “I think it’s problematic for people that are really literalistic. If they (the church) are wrong on one thing, then what would be next?”

BTW, Simon Southerton is an Australian molecular biologist, and throughly knowledgeable about the dna evidence - part of molecular biology -was excommunicated because he openly stated that dna did not support the bom.

Which translation is the following found?
Who cares?

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

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)

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. You know mormon history documents that Smith stated with finality that he had completed the editing of the KJV. You are the ones who claim to have a living, prophet and seer. 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.

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 Said: Please explain how Joseph a boy with three years of education wrote this huge book with systems of government, systems of weights and measures, societies, and geography from the Middle east that he could not have known all accurately portrayed, and never made a mistake in one pass, this being his first such work. Experienced writers cannot do that easily, or at all.

U Said: It’s called plagiarism

Fine, prove it, here, I'll give you a "leg up" on that, Anti's have charged for years that Manuscript story by Solomon Spaulding, is the source for the book of Mormon, here is a link Manuscript Story.

I have read it, and anyone who has can tell you A) it's not the source for the Book of Mormon and B) Solomon Spaulding was not a very good author.

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

You might also want to see this The Spaulding Theory Debunked.

Good luck, your going to need it.

Sorry; but SPIN does not equal DEBUNKED.

You might also want to see this The Spaulding Theory Debunked.

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

Galatians 1:6-9
6. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
7. which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
9. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (niv)

ANYBODY???

Like this fine looking fellow???

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
12. And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.
13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. (niv)

Like THESE guys??

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Ephesians 2:1-2

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

KJV 1 Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

KJV 2 Timothy 1:13
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

KJV 2 Timothy 3:14-15
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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

I wonder if his threat means Joseph Smith is going to SUE you for calling him a plagiarist? Or does it mean he won't let you pass by him.....

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.

From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are"

(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).

Either way, you are in BIG trouble......NOT!

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

I wonder if his threat means Joseph Smith is going to SUE you for calling him a plagiarist? Or does it mean he won't let you pass by him.....

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.

From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are"

(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).

Either way, you are in BIG trouble......NOT!

LOL

I doubt if the false prophet Joseph Smith is waiting to collect...

He’s too busy screaming...

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

God handled that trial for plagerizing the KJV many years back, after Smith's death. Mormons like to trott out Spaldings Manuscript Story, when signed aphadavids show that Spalding wrote many other MS along the same lines. With that said, there are 75 similarities between "story" and the bom. More info here:

http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/wrw/1977DavA.htm

Joseph Smith and Bringham Young must be characterized as abject liars and false prophets, the evidence is just TOO overwhelming.

EVIDENCE???

WHAT evidence??

BTTT

I Said: I notice you keep bringing up the flat earthers, are you one of them?

U Said: Are you trying to be mean to me DU?

I assure you that were I "trying to be mean to you, you would not have to ask. However, you do seem to have a fetish with the Flat Earthers for some reason.

I Said: Your premise which you conveniently cut off from the Quote was "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" Your premise that the writer is the only support is flawed, and is the "Standard of man" that you accuse me of using.

U Said: Not really DU, as the originator of the BOM, his credibility is more than fair play

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. 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, 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.

I Said: There is of course the work itself, testimonies of others, and in the case of something that purports to be scripture, God's testimony of lack thereof.

U Said: Fine, the work itself – no archaeological or anthropological support,

There is indeed evidence for, not proof of, you just dismiss it without critically examining it because it does not fit with your existing beliefs. This is one of the reasons I find it telling that you keep bringing up the flat earthers. I hope you realize that "Orthodox Christianity" is the biggest historical supporter of the theory of a flat earth, people were put to death for believing the earth was round and that sun moved around it. Orthodox Christianity resisted all the evidence and refused to admit there even was any, until the sheer weight forced them to admit the earth was round. You represent Orthodox Christianity in this debate, you continue to deny evidence for and I have no interest in crushing you with proof, you do well to bring up the flat earth believers, however, yours is the side that was pro flat earth and the "majority"'s methods and tactics have not changed much.

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: plagiarism from the KJV,

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?

U Said: anachronisms out the wazoo.

So does the Bible...

U Said: Contradicts other Mormon doctrines.

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

U Said: This is just the short list, the work itself fails to stand on its own.

Actaully it is a remarkable work that has many proofs built right in.

U Said: Testimony of others – <Snip>

It's David Whitmer, and yep he slipped into apostasy and left the church as did many others, but he never recanted his testimony of the Book of Mormon, which is unusual in someone who becomes disaffected with a Mormonism. (How many Anti Momrons here are ex Mormons? Lots.)

U Said: Joseph Smith denounced them and their character in the strongest manner – why believe them.

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: When he plagerized wholesale from the bible, his work is considerably reduced.

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

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...

U Said: Second, he didn’t work alone – he had his helper scribes who could have contributed to the work.

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

U Said: And never make a mistake – ROTFLAICGU! I guess 4000+ changes don’t count as mistakes, even significant changes as recent as the early 1970’s.

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

If you are going to say 4,000 you are including punctuation which was also added to the Bible, If you are going to quote the 3,913 number, you are including spelling changes which also happened with the Bible.

Have you ever written a complex story? My brother is on his 10th rewrite of a Sci Fi novel, because he keeps having to go back and change things (one significant change to his story involves interstellar currency, water for reaction mass, he had to go back and make huge changes in his story line. Joseph never did, the Currencies always work, the political systems always work, and he never went back to edit them to make his story line "work", the reason for this is he was not making it up, but translating an actual history.

I Said: How could Joseph possibly have known the route from Jerusalem to Naholm to Bountiful and portrayed it so accurately that we can follow the trail today and find the only place on the coast that meets with the description of Bountiful? indeed, the Valley, the wadi that flows year round, how?

U Said: As I stated earlier, the only thing found are the intials NMH, in a culture that was non Hebrew. That is what your whole premise rests. The so-called site of Bountiful no where near fits the description.

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. You can (because you just did) say that this is nothing more than letters scratched on a wall, Saying it does not make it true. There is evidence you can either continue to hide your head in the sand as the church did with the "Round Earth" kooks. The locals in this Video refer to not only the Place Nahom, but the People as well, watch this video: Nahom in The Book of Mormon

This video shows the arabian peninsula and the area called Nephis or bountiful which lines up exactly with the place Nahom described in the Book of Mormon, and by following the directions in the Book of Mormon, you get to first Nahom, then Nephis (bountiful) exactly as described in the Book of Mormon, watch this video: Nephis Bountiful in Arabia: The Book of Mormon

You can continue to hide your head in the Proverbial sand with claims of "no evidence" as your ancestors did when told the earth was round, or you can actually look at evidence that challenges your beliefs.

I Said: How could he have known to put Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?

U Said: Yawn. Fellow Mormons do not believe at face value Chiasmus :

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

Chiasmus appears in all scripture, often complex, some can only be detected with computers as they span entire verses, 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: The chiasms that Mormon researchers find all over the Book are, in fact, a result of the incredible amount of repetition contained therein, and are well within the bounds of probability.

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

U Said: This, coupled with the rather loose definition of a chiasmus employed by the researchers, wherein they can include only those elements which fit the structure, and discard those elements which don't, results in a large number of imaginary chiasmus in the Book.

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

What Does Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Prove?
Book of Mormon Literature
New Statistical Study of Chiasmus: Chance or Design?

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

I Said: How could he have known that now they would begin to find Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters?

U Said: A wimpy article that cherry picked sentences from other articles. I’ll pick one item cited in your reference:

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.

I Said: How could he have known that in the modern day we would find the Ten Commandments in america written in a form of Hebrew no one in his day could read?

U Said: ROTFLAICGU! I see you stopped using the website that specifically states mormons visited the Los Lunas stone and discarded it as even evidence!!!!!!! But did you read this website either???? Lookie here:

I use many web links, I have several for Los Lunas stone:
the Hebrew stone with Ten commandments found in america: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_loslunas.html
The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone
Is this the world's oldest surviving inscription of the Ten Commandments?
The Los Lunas Hebrew Inscription

Then there's: The Newark, Ohio Decalogue Stone and Keystone
The Bat Creek stone
Burrows Cave

I could continue to throw things at you, but like the flat earthers of old and of today you will deny each one successively until at the end you will crow "See you have no evidence" thus making an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

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.

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

U Said: Bawwwaaahhhh, you are 0 for 2 on this evidence DU.

Spoken like a defender of the flat earth society, go read some of their stuff, it sounds eerily like your arguments here.

I Said: How could he have known there would be other stones with ancient Hebrew on them, again this form of Hebrew which nobody knew how to read or write?

U Said: Once again, failure to read the website, several options are given
1. Cherokee
2. Hebrew, but Masonic
3. Welsh Coelbren

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.

Read the article, not just for quote mining, but for content,t he writing is unquestionably Ancient Hebrew, No one knew how to read or write it when found (that's why they came up with the Cherokee and other theories) most scientists abandoned those theories when Hebrew scholars recognized the writing.

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.

I could go on about Joseph's description of the geography of Lehi's trip, or the records found at qumran engraved on plates, or Chiasmus, or about the other Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, but as my father once told me, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" It is obvious to me and to anyone reading this that you are somewhat less than open minded.

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, some of them also have doctorates, so what? Can you prove the Los Lunas stone to be a forgery? Can you explain it in any way that makes sense?

I Said: How did he know they would start finding records inscribed on metal plates, in his day it was unheard of.

U Said: Broken clock

Lame excuse for an obvious support you don't want to admit too.

I Said: How did he know that it is now common to find along with the book of breathings other scriptural works buried with mummies? no one knew it back then.

U Said: On the contrary, considerable numbers of these documents were found and the finds in Egypt were widely disseminated. Further, the man Smith bought it from could have easily passed the information too. Another red herring.

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.

I Said: How did Joseph smith a backwoods boy from America, with a total of three years of education drain the swamps at Nauvoo, build houses and roads that were a marvel of his day and design and construct temples that were beyond the engineering of his day? how?

U Said: All by himself – wow no one else with the skill and knowledge but him. I doubt that piece of fiction. Same too with the temples, the technology was well in place at that time.

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. Joseph also designed the Drainage system that was then placed under the whole city, covered drainage was not a common thing in that day and age, but Nauvoo had them. William Weeks was the architect for the Nauvoo temple, Joseph Smith overseeing him, Joseph was directing design, Weeks put the design on paper. see: Nauvoo Temple

Remarkable feats for someone with three whole years of formal education, wouldn't you say?

I Said: Joseph is long gone, how come millions have read his Book of Mormon translation and prayed to God to see if it was his word and received an emphatic YES direct from God?

U Said: Yes, millions have been fooled by a false emotional feeling involked by the used car salesmen on bicycles. Millions of others have done the same and received an emphatic NO direct from God

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

I Said: Your answers to date have been to say it was Satan, or a trick, or it's not peer reviewed, you have not answered the questions, you have dodged them.

U Said: If I were dodging, I wouldn’t be writing such long, detailed posts.

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

U Said: Yes, there are multiple answers to the specific issues, some are fooled by Satan, some by the by the desires of their own heart, some by many other combinations of things. Forgeries, deliberate stretching of evidence (as you commonly post), lack of improperly critiqued research and so-called findings, etc.

Can you honestly say that Anti Momrons have never been led by satan, Forged anything, Stretched evidence, or Findings? You can't say that because I can give you specific instances of each of the above, in a simple, one person example, I give you Mark Hoffman, who decided the Church was not true when he lied about a sin and God let him keep going, digging himself in deeper, he became an anti Mormon and continued to attend and pretend, he forged documents like the salamander letter which is the support behind the allegations that Joseph was a treasure seeker and he was led so far5 astray by Satan that he started murdering people to cover up his forgeries. Show me a Mormon who forged things to make the church look good and then wound up murdering people, you can't.

U Said: What happens when Mormons peer review among themselves and the results of the author are counter to Mormon doctrine – most of the time they are censored, forced to drop out of the limelight and even excommunicated.

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" and immediately get an audience because like the Monty python skit they are crying help, Help! I'm being repressed!", 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.

Let's take a Catholic who works a a Catholic owned College who published a paper claiming that the pope is illegitimate, do you expect the College to actually put their name on such a paper? Of course not. If said person then went to the press saying they were "being repressed", do you think they are on a course that leads to reconciliation, or separation? Separation of course, they are separating themselves from the Catholic church and using the "press" to further their career this move may be calculated, or not, but it's effects lead to a more stained relationship, 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.

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...

I Said: The Book of Mormon does not rest upon Joseph Smith only, any more than the Gospel of God rested upon Jesus Christ the man.

U Said: No, it doesn’t. It also relies upon external evidences (archaeology, textural criticism, etc), the credibility and validity of witnesses, and internal consistency with Mormon doctrinal documents. The bom fails on all of these counts DU.

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.

I Said: The man Jesus Christ was vilified, arrested illegally, tried illegally, beaten publicly, and murdered on a cross between two thieves. ….. snip………Joseph is cast from the same mold,

U Said: Joseph Smith never died for my sins as God the Son either.

No body said he did, More read herrings?

U Said: Given Smith’s prior troubles and the reason for his legal jailing (ordering the illegal destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor), it was more likely a natural understanding of his likely fate.

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

I Said: Your premise is a flawed premise that a man is the measure of his works, the reverse is true. The works of a man are his measure. and Joseph's works are great indeed.

U Said: Yep, Texas is just one of them.

The more red herrings you throw out, the more obvious it is, did you know?

I Said: I'll respond to the rest of your monster post later when I have time...

U Said: I wait with bated breath, and now in the immortal words of the prophet if bid you adieu.

If?

There is a difference between evidence for and evidence of, Evidence of is supposed to irrefutably prove something, I don't think we'll ever have that kind of evidence about the Book of Mormon, Evidence for is evidence that will confirm to the believer the truth he already believes in, bolstering his faith, and that we have plenty of Evidence for is easily dismissed by the nonbeliever, Christianity has a lot of archeological evidence that is believes and supported by Christians, you said earlier that evidence uncovered by Mormons was invalid because it was from Mormons you also have talked about peer review by people outside of Mormonism, these fallacious stands would destroy much of the archeological evidence you cite for the Bible, if we throw out all the research that has been done by christians because it was not peer reviewed by Moslems, we won't have much left of what I believe to be a great work. the same is true of studies of Mormonism, the place of burila Naholm, the route to bountiful, you would not question if it was somebody finding a route from the Bible, but if it's for Momrons, it's all a lie and falsehood, your Bias is obvious, your reasoning flawed and your conclusions capricious. In short, you bring up the flat earthers all the time because, you are a modern day flat earther, denying the round earth of Mormonism, and it's an resistable comparison, the evidence mounts, and anyone who wants to know the truth can simply follow the command in 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.

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. When I prayed about the Book of Mormon and God answered my prayer, God fulfilled his promise that the answer would have a testimony of Jesus attached in my case it was very specific, a specific testimony of Jesus' life and mission. Any testimony of the Book of Mormon is a testimony of Jesus because it is a book that testifies of him.

Anti's have asked me what I will do when I die and discover that I am wrong...

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

He who hath ears to hear let him hear.
I testify to you that these scriptures are true messages from God.
I testify that the Bible and the Book of Mormon together, reinforcing each other are two witnesses testifying of God's merciful plan for his children.
Come unto him, read, learn, and Put our religion to "The Test".
If I am indeed a false witness of Jesus as Godzilla would have you believe, then you have nothing to fear, for God will tell you, if I am indeed a true messenger from God then you have nothing to fear, for God himself will testify of my works.
If you read and act not, you will have no excuse in the great and terrible day of the Lord, "why stand ye in jeopardy every hour?"

choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

God bless you all.