Benson blows Monson's Arthur Patton tale out of the water

[_Runtu]

How long, Doc, is it going to take you to explain all those thousands of edits in the Book of Mormon and its obvious plagiarisms from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews"? It appears that you haven't even started. Fraud speed.

Uh, the good doctor is an exmo. Just saying.

[_Steve Benson]

I don't think anyone ought to expect the Chicago Manual of Style (or Turabian or *insert style) citation. However, it's easy to say you have an anonymous "source" who doesn't want to be outed (interesting how he respects that, but doesn't respect anonymity on message boards), which essentially frees you up to plagiarize others' findings with impunity.

Anyway, it's not that hard to cite a source, an anonymous source, a website, an author of a post on a website, or provide documentation of documentation.

The reason why people want citation and documentation is ascertain the credibility of the message being received. When one fails to do that the focus shifts from the message to the messenger, as it should. In this case, Mr. Benson is guilty of essentially everything he claims Mr. Monson has or has not done. The former can try and shift the burden of proof to the accused, but that doesn't recuse him of shoddy research, ad hoc argumentation, multiple edits without alerting the audience of having done so, inventing stuff (after all there's no citation/documentation to "factual information"), and frankly obfuscation on his methods of research.

Additionally, Mr. Benson hasn't demonstrated why anecdotes are verboten for use by religious leaders. He himself relies heavily on anecdotes to relate his various stories. We all do.

Finally, Mr. Benson does seem to get pretty nasty with Mormons. That's all good and fine, but it distracts from his message, in my opinion. Pointing out hypocrisy is great, but remember we all live in glass houses. I believe sticking to doctrine and policy is better than attacking nonsense anecdotes and trying to attach a bigger importance to them than is necessary.

- Doc

I get nasty with Mormons when they deserve it.

[_Res Ipsa]

Nevo, I'm to cheap to subscribe. Is the title on the linked document the same as the title Steve gives?

Yes, it is.

This is the image from the link

Thanks. The image won't open for me, but your confirmation is sufficient.

[_Steve Benson]

How long, Doc, is it going to take you to explain all those thousands of edits in the Book of Mormon and its obvious plagiarisms from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews"? It appears that you haven't even started. Fraud speed.

Uh, the good doctor is an exmo. Just saying.

And the good doctor hasn't answered my questions. Keep in mind, please, that he was the one bringing up edits and plagiarisms. Just sayin.'

[_Steve Benson]

I gather that such changes are not inspired when supposed word-for-word translations of words provided by God end up being changed out later for preferred words edited in by God's servants as replacement verbiage for God's originally-provided translated words. Or something like that.

You have the original "translation". You have the printer's copy. You have the 1830 edition. None of them, where possible to compare, match up 100%. Then you have Joseph Smith, the "author", making changes for the 1837 and 1840 editions, or at least not catching the changes that others involved made on their own. Then you have added chapters and verses. Much later you have added chapter headings and dates, etc. and etc. Meanwhile, the actual words are hardly changed at all. There are very few actual word changes. You are making much ado about practically nothing.

So ANY changes whatsoever are proof that there is no god involved? What about Steve Benson's editing of Steve Benson? I am sure there are a multitude of gaffs and oversights that Steve does not catch. And because god does not intervene that is proof that there is no god or God or "God"....

Steve Benson is not a prophet of God who writes using heaven-sent peepstones and angels to deliver his messages. When Mormons can't defend the mistakes of their God, they fall back to comparing their God to a man in terms of abilities and frailties and imperfections. Which is what this God always was--a man

And that man was Joseph Smith, the guy who invented the Mormon god in the first place.

[_Sethbag]

I graduated cum laude.

I graduated "per labia circa dentes meos".

[_Shiloh]

I get nasty with Mormons when they deserve it.

Cam is not a Mormon you idiot.

In fact, he's one of the most strident atheists on this board. Good lord you really did pick up some bad habits from your grandfather.

[_Steve Benson]

In any event, props to Steve Benson for pointing out that anyone who is skeptical of his ideas is part of the conspiracy. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?

Sadly, I was thinking the same thing. I wish I were not.

What conspiracy? Shiloh said it involved Dr. Pepper. Monson is a Pepsi drinker. Please get your conspiracies right.

[Guest]

And the good doctor hasn't answered my questions. Keep in mind, please, that he was the one bringing up edits and plagiarisms. Just sayin.'

Welp. Since I was outed as an Ex-Mo...

I'll answer your question(s) hoping you'll do the same with the other posters here.

How do I explain the errors and edits with regard to to the Book of Mormon?

It was written by men who were attempting to write a novel. It was plagiarized from various sources (The Late War, View of the Hebrews, the Bible, etc...). Once it couldn't be sold as a novel, it was marketed as divine. Subsequent edits were to reflect doctrinal changes.

There you go, Mr. Benson. There you go.

- Doc

[_Sethbag]

Good luck to those pursuing Patton's military service records. That is, certainly, an important element of the story. I've been involved most recently in focusing on information relating to Monson's claim of being boyhood friends with Patton; the timelines and places for their respective educational tracks from primary school to jr. high and into high school; whether the two of them were in the same class; and the years involved. There are various possibilities to explain those relational elements. but some speculation is involved and acquiring the all the relevant information is not necessarily all that easy.

You have some unusual hobbies. I shoot Bullseye, 10 meter air pistol, I cycle a lot, play computer games from time to time, and other things. You, apparently, spend non-trivial portions of your life trying to nail down evidence that an 80something year old windbag has occasionally gotten certain non-essential facts wrong, or at least inaptly phrased, when recounting his life anecdotes from 70 years ago.